Here are some of the questions that we covered. Watch the replay for more.

Why is it important to train the next generation of scientists and academicians to increase clarity and impact of their science?

Because they’ll need to defend and advocate for their work. They’ll need to pitch their ideas to get funding and launch academic collaborations. During our conversation, I realised that there is an important difference between job expectations and reality. In reality, STEM professionals and academicians have to have pitching skills. Those are crucial for unlocking next career stages.

What’s an Academic Job Talk?

Essentially, it is the pitch of your work. But it is also the story of why it matters.

Tiffany trains people to zoom out and explain clearly, why they do what they do. The truth is often uncovered in personal stories. The ones that move us and stick with the audience long after the pitch is done. Tiffany has been part of several scientific committees evaluating projects and selecting new research ideas, and she says that scientific storytelling always works.

If you’re interested in her work, reach out to Tiffany on LinkedIn and subscribe to her newsletter, From the Desk of the Storytelling Professor, to receive bold strategies for academic leaders to advance their careers.

What’s the secret power of academic storytelling, specifically when it comes to job hunting?

Stories bring out the “why it matters” in a way that connects with the audience on two levels: intellectual and emotional. The pitch changes from “that’s cute” to something the audience cares about when storytelling is used. Tiffany highlights that your funders need to care if they are to give you money.

Stories also allow you to effectively share your thought process. This is extremely useful for defending ideas, presenting new methods, and answering tough questions. Tiffany loves Q&As and she teaches her mentees how to unpack questions and approach them as conversation-starters. Storytelling helps here, too.

And then, I was coached live!

Tiffany coached me using her signature framework from “The Art of The Academic Job Talk” programme. We pretended I was a PhD student again looking for academic jobs in the United States.

My main take-aways from the exercise:

• Visualise your listener;

• Do not assume that common assumptions are common for everyone - explain them upfront;

• Give examples whenever possible;

• Add a personal layer on why you care about your work;

• Use the “SO THAT” framework to streamline explanations.

Watch me in the hot seat and subscribe for future special live sessions with experts from improv, law, theatre, design, philosophy…

Subscribe now

Thank you to everyone who tuned into Communication Lessons From…!

Your Coach,

Yulia

To explain a technical decision clearly, start with your recommendation and the decision required. Explain why it matters now, what happens if no action is taken, and the risks involved. Use technical detail selectively: include the evidence needed to support the decision, rather than a chronological account of your method. The aim is not to remove nuance, but to make the decision, stakes and trade-offs clear.

Today, I’m answering the question that often brings a little anxiety to mid-career engineers and scientists when they have to influence a funding or programme decision by presenting their analyses and defending their technical recommendations.

How do I explain a technical decision to senior stakeholders without oversimplifying?

Before I even start answering the question, I’d like to highlight that speaking with senior stakeholders is an important skill for mid-career STEM professionals. You may have to explain your decisions. You may be a part of a far-reaching decision-making process. You have influence. This may build a little pressure on you. That’s where speaking anxiety before such important meetings often comes from.

So here’s what you can do to prepare.

First, keep the following 3 points in mind:

1. You can assume that the people in the room trust your technical expertise.

   Executives may ask about your assumptions or methodology. Be ready to explain them. But you do not need to begin with your methodology and the chronology of how you arrived at your conclusion. Focus on your recommendations, analysis, and the stakes - why it all matters.

2. The overarching goal is decision-making.
   So you should bring up only the evidence and parts of your analysis that help making the decision. Ideally, your detailed explanations will be prompted by informed questions from non-technical decision-makers. They do not need every technical detail upfront.

3. Consider what worries you about oversimplifying.
   Are you worried you won’t give them enough information? Or even insult their intelligence if you “dumb it down” too much? Perhaps you are anxious about sounding unsure because you are not certain how much simplifying is too much?

Now, prepare the following 5 parts. This is the homework before your meeting.

1. Clearly define your speaker goal.
   What do you what to achieve at the end of this meeting? Formulate it as precisely as possible.

2. Understand your audience profile.
   I have written about this as the Audience Archetype. You need to know who you are talking to in order to communicate effectively. What do they need to decide? What do they care about?

3. Use BLUF to show stakeholders the direction you want everyone to take.
   Bottom Line Up Front is a useful framework to focus everyone’s attention on the main point. It can be developed and supported as the meeting unfolds. But the main message should be clear to stakeholders as early as possible.

4. Use their language.
   Do not wait for them to ask about what you (should) know is important to them. Speak about risks, uncertainties, reliability, cost, timing or strategic consequences, depending on what matters in their context. Revisit step two if you are unsure what is important to them.

5. And DO NOT use chronology to explain what you did and what happened.
   These are not your fellow engineers and scientists (even if in the past they were). They are not here to learn about your method. So avoid taking up time explaining what happened and how before you arrived at the conclusion and your recommendations.

Finally, you’re ready to structure and lead the meeting. I suggest the following 4 guiding questions.

1. What is your recommendation?
   State it clearly, using appropriate language, at the beginning of the meeting. Use BLUF.

2. Why does it matter now?
   Here, you can quote your analysis and explain relevant details. Remember: you’re there to help make a decision. There is no need to fill silences with technical detail unless it helps answer a question.

3. What happens if we do nothing?
   Or, what happens if we do not adopt your idea? You can bring up more evidence to highlight the added value of your solution or recommendation.

4. What are the risks involved?
   Your senior leaders will appreciate if you consider the risks and speak their language. From here, we are more likely to have an informed Q&A and reach the desired outcome of the meeting.

Good luck with your important stakeholder meeting! I can help you prepare it.

Book your free discovery call!

Your Coach,

Yulia

Before the workshop, the coach should do a brief diagnosis to be able to tailor the workshop’s teaching elements later. They’d interview the organisation about its participants’ roles, real communication situations, organisational priorities and common failure points.

And now, here are the main elements of a workshop, regardless of the topic*:

1. Problem-statement:

• A clear definition of the communication problem addressed comes first.

• Also, a dialogue with the participants for them to explain their needs, worries and interests should connect the session to the situations they actually face.

2. Practical exercises and expert feedback:

• First, a safe space for practising in front of colleagues must be created by the coach.

• Two or three well-designed exercises are usually enough for a workshop.

• The key is not simply doing the exercise, but receiving individual feedback from the coach.

3. Reusable frameworks:

• A workshop should give participants one or two practical frameworks that reduce preparation time and help them make better decisions when preparing a talk, presentation or meeting.

• There should be some theory, but limited to explanations of why the framework works and when to use it.

4. Examples:

• Examples from real talks and presentations. Things that the coach has tried in the past and that work with different audiences and stakes (e.g. presenting for a European funding institution, talking up the chain about research, presenting at a conference, giving a keynote or a museum lecture).

5. Real-life applications:

• Consideration of intercultural communication is valuable because that’s the reality for a lot of STEM people.

• Participant input and their workplace examples should lead an insightful Q&A discussion.

*Any workshop on any topic related to STEM communication should be based on the main elements above. Now, the topic is typically selected by the organiser while the coach proposes a few options.

From experience, here’s a list of topics that mid-career engineers and scientists are interested in:

• How do I make an engaging conference presentation? How do I make a conference talk less boring?

• How do I explain a technical concept and results to a non-technical audience?

• How do I use storytelling in a technical presentation?

• How do I present to investors or funders as a technical founder?

• How do I communicate uncertainty without sounding unconfident?

From these topics of interest, general themes emerge. Addressing these themes would make for a successful event:

• Targeting different audiences;

• Structuring and delivering an impactful scientific and technical presentation;

• Storytelling and emotional connection in STEM communication;

• Intercultural communication;

• Persuasion in STEM: getting funds and communicating results to funders.

As a bonus, it is always good to support the participants with a one-page summary containing the main points to consider, one or two frameworks and a written example, ideally one that is memorable and relatable to the audience.

Finally, I must add that a one-off workshop is not enough.

It does inspire the participants and excite them to invest in their communication skills. Until they have to go back to work and get buried in meetings and reports. A structured, continuous skill-building training is required to make a palpable difference.

And the difference will be huge.

First of all, for the individuals:

• They will enjoy presenting, meetings, and public speaking. They will be empowered by their own abilities to grab the attention of a room and guide thinking in real time.

• They will feel cared for by their organisation. It is important. Because the reality of so many STEM workplaces is that their engineers and scientists are expected to deliver excellent presentations and know how to communicate effectively with international colleagues, and lead coalitions - without any appropriate training, and with no time for preparation! That is a lot of pressure. Especially, on mid-career professionals.

• They will get more visibility and opportunities. Effective communication skills literally open doors and attract invitations: from giving keynotes to leading new coalitions. That is what happened to me many times. My communication skills effectively shaped the most important turning points in my scientific career. I became the youngest Principal Investigator leading international particle accelerator experiments thanks to my writing and pitching skills. I was invited to give a keynote in Arizona after speaking about my research at the International Astronautical Congress in Paris. I was still a PhD student.

And equally important, for the organisation:

• The reputation of the entire organisation is shaped by the seemingly small events. The people are the best ambassadors of the technical and scientific excellence of their institutions. When individuals showcase impressive communication skills, the reputation of the organisation goes up.

• Investing in your people, in what they really need, helps retention of talent.

• Similarly, it helps to attract new talent. When other companies are pulling ahead with modern workplaces that value well-being and professional development, it is a significant factor.

• This is not my favourite point but it matters: the return on investment in external outreach, collaboration and representation is realised. It’s just good sense: when we buy an expensive scientific instrument, we also procure the right training for staff to use it. Why do we pour enormous amounts of resources (primarily, time and money) into conferences, topical meetings, events, fairs, etc. - without supporting the people with training in these high-stakes communication events? I’ve written more on this in my piece, The organisational cost of bad STEM communication.

Good luck with your STEM communication workshop! I can help you tailor it.

Book your free discovery call

Your Coach,

Yulia

Among the 5 STEM Story Plots I wrote about before, the “Voyage & Return” probably works best for teaching. However, it is not only for classrooms. If you want to explain a difficult part of your method or analysis (like at a conference👇), you can use it too.

Voyage & Return

“Voyage & Return” stories involve the protagonist embarking on a journey to an unfamiliar world. They face trials and tribulations throughout their journey before ultimately returning home, often changed or enlightened.

Three main tropes:

• The (s)hero “falls” into another world

• A thrilling escape or chase

• The (s)hero brings something back with them (often knowledge and enlightenment)

The Bernoulli example

In my conversation with the professor I mentioned above, I used the Bernoulli equation as an example. Instead of: “Here’s Bernoulli’s equation.”

Invite the students to be a part of the story:

“Let’s imagine we’re eighteenth-century physicists. We notice something strange. Every experiment contradicts our intuition.

Water flows faster through a narrower section of a pipe. Our intuition might say that faster flow should mean greater pressure. But measurements show the opposite. Why?

What can we say about the energy of the fluid as it moves through the pipe? …”

Now the equation is not the starting point. It is the answer to a series of questions the students are asking.

Students leave the familiar world. They ask questions and encounter surprises. They “return” understanding something they didn’t before.

That’s literally the “Voyage & Return” plot.

Subscribe now

Use a simple test before you introduce a concept, ask yourself: what questions does my audience need to have in mind for this key information to feel like the final answer?

Now, use this five-step structure to explore a difficult concept:

1. Start in the familiar world (assumption, intuition).
   Begin with what your audience already expects to be true.

2. Introduce the anomaly.
   Show them an observation, result or problem that does not fit that expectation.

3. Let them make a prediction (yes, ask them to venture ideas live).
   Ask: “What do you think is happening here?”
   This is where they become participants rather than listeners.

4. Travel through the investigation - guide them to ask the right questions at the right time.
   Introduce each part of the method, model or equation only when it helps ask the next question.

5. Return with a new understanding.
   Revisit the original observation and concept with the newfound knowledge.

Your Coach,

Yulia

Watch the full recording to follow our process step-by-step.

What I took away from the conversation with Max was that stories are essentially a sequence of questions. Questions that you want your audience to be asking. Questions that you story answers in the right moments. That way, the learning is locked in. That way, the audience not only understands the material better, but can retrieve it more easily later. Here’s the bit:

We also talked about:

• chronology Vs story;

• characters in STEM stories: the scientist, historical figures, organisations, and even your live audience;

• what creates tension in STEM stories;

• when technology and science enter the stories; and

• how to connect the different elements of storytelling.

Many thanks to Max for this episode! Do consider subscribing to his Substack, Forwards From a Futurist:
Explorations and reflections on our place in the universe; and, the future ahead. This Substack examines the intersection of science, philosophy, exploration, and technology. Drawing on science fiction, astronomy, history, and storytelling, there is an optimistic human future that we must first imagine, and all work hard to create.

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video soon.

In future editions of the special series Communication Lessons From…, I will invite people with expertise in humour, visual support, theatre, courtroom speeches and more! The aim is to identify what their fields can teach STEM professionals about communicating more effectively.

Subscribe now

Your Coach,

Yulia

I know that’s not true.

After coaching engineers, researchers, NGO founders and technical leaders, I started noticing clear patterns. People tend to progress through four distinct stages of storytelling proficiency:

Barely → Occasional → Leader → Master

The exciting part? You can move from one stage to the next. Storytelling isn’t a gift. It’s a practiced skill. And it’s a great tool of effective communication. If not THE greatest tool.

That’s why I created my

STEM Storytelling Benchmark.

It’s more than a fun self-assessment. It’s the framework I use during my 1:1 coaching to quickly understand where someone is today, identify what’s holding them back, and tailor our work to the next stage - rather than throwing generic storytelling advice at them.

A few questions for you:

• Do your stories genuinely change how people think, or are they just entertaining detours?

• Can you tell when a story is the wrong tool, and when it’s exactly what’s needed?

• Do you generalise or tell personal (and real) stories?

• Are your stories memorable because they’re personal, or because you’ve simply told them many times?

• If I asked you to explain your research without slides, would a story naturally come to mind?

If those questions made you pause, you’re exactly the kind of person I built this benchmark for.

I’m not giving the framework away in this post. 😉

If you’re curious to discover your level, simply reply with “Benchmark” and I’ll send it to you.

Or, if you’d rather skip straight to applying it, book a discovery call with me. The first conversation is short, sweet, to the point, and completely free. We’ll identify where you are on the benchmark, where you want to be, and how I can help you get there.

Book your free call

Because the goal isn’t to become a storyteller.

It’s to make your technical ideas impossible to ignore.

There’s more

I’m also launching something new next week.

Thanks to Substack, I’ve connected to many great thinkers and communicators. They all have their special styles and “tricks”.

So I thought: why not learn directly from them?

That’s why I’m starting a new live special:

Communication Lessons From…

Each session, I’ll invite someone whose communication I genuinely admire. Together, we’ll unpack how they think about communicating technical ideas, the techniques they use, and what STEM professionals can borrow for their own talks.

Our first guest is Max King, a storyteller and spacecraft engineer.

Rather than simply talking about storytelling, we’ll look at how stories fit into real engineering and scientific presentations.

We’ll cover

• How do you know when a story belongs in a technical talk?

• Can storytelling make you more credible rather than less?

• And because I can’t resist making things practical, we’ll finish with a live challenge: building the outline of a story for a real STEM presentation together!

If you’ve ever thought “This all sounds great… but how do I actually use storytelling in my own work?” - this session is for you.

Join the live special with Max King

I hope you’ll join us on Thursday, 23 July 2026 at 10 AM EST | 4 PM CEST for about 30 minutes. I have a feeling it’s going to be the first of many great conversations.

Your Coach,

Yulia

Many researchers think trust is built by presenting stronger evidence. Of course evidence matters. You need good methods, good data and good analysis. But after you’ve presented your result and the evidence supporting it, there is still work to do. You continue building trust, actively, by showing that you understand exactly where your findings stop.

That’s why I’ve formulated a simple framework. I call it SALE, and I use it immediately after presenting the results and the supporting evidence.

I’ve been reading papers, listening to podcasts, and going through comments on some of the Substacks covering research and communication. I’ve been looking for something extraordinary that would explain how to build trust while talking about your scientific and technical work. Not when your PhD title or affiliation buys the trust. But the trust that you feel in the room. I wanted to crack a kind of magical formula for this.

Instead, I found myself thinking back to conferences I’ve attended. When I am part of the audience, what makes me go like “Okay, yeah, I think this person really knows what they’re talking about and they’ve considered this and that in a very clever way…”

I’ve sat through hundreds of STEM talks over the years. Space engineering. Planetary science. Radiation physics. Artificial intelligence. Future aircraft. Human spaceflight. Medicine. I cannot remember any one of them well enough to recall details but I do remember the feeling I had during a couple of outstanding talks. When the speaker genuinely earned my trust. I can summarise it this way: I trusted them when I felt respected as a listener and trusted as an intellectual to hold the “conversation” to the very end of it.

Now, the crucial point was feeling trusted enough to have a conversation with the speaker. To engage with their work on an intellectual level and discuss the entirety of it. And here is the most important part: the “entirety” only kicks in at the end, when we would discuss limitations.

They assumed I was capable of thinking through the limitations of their work, asking good questions, and perhaps even contributing ideas for improving it. That’s what built my trust.

I still remember sitting in a talk about spectrometry on Mars. If I’m honest, I couldn’t tell you today what the main conclusion of the presentation was. But I vividly remember becoming intellectually drawn into it when the scientist stepped away from the results and began explaining the limitations of the method and the acquired measurements: why they existed, how they simulated Martian conditions in the laboratory, what assumptions they had to make, and which uncertainties they simply couldn’t eliminate.

Those are not the same thing.

Many researchers think trust is built by presenting stronger evidence. Of course evidence matters. You need good methods, good data and good analysis. But after you’ve presented your result and the evidence supporting it, there is still work to do. You continue building trust, actively, by showing that you understand exactly where your findings stop.

That’s why I’ve formulated a simple framework. I call it SALE, and I use it immediately after presenting the results and the supporting evidence.

S - Scope

Imagine you’re speaking to a policy-maker.

• Explain, in one or two sentences, what your findings apply to.

• Define the boundaries of your conclusions.

• Resist the temptation to overgeneralise.

A - Assumption

Now, talk to a fellow scientist.

• State the single most important assumption behind your analysis.

• Explain why that assumption is reasonable.

L - Limitations

This is where many researchers lose clarity. Here, I need you to imagine speaking to an undergraduate student.

• Use bullet points.

• No decorative language.

• No defensive language.

• No burying the important point halfway through a paragraph.

E - Exploration

Finally, think about your funder. Address them here.

• What should happen next?

• Which gaps do these limitations reveal?

• What experiment, dataset or collaboration would help closing the gaps?

Notice that every step speaks to a different audience. A policy-maker. A fellow scientist. A student. A funder. Good communication isn’t about finding one way of speaking that works for everyone. It’s about understanding what each audience needs in order to trust your thinking.

Here’s an example.

Imagine you’ve developed an AI system that detects structural damage on aircraft using high-resolution images collected by inspection drones. You’ve presented your result: the model identifies cracks, dents and surface defects with 99% accuracy on your validation dataset. You’ve shown examples of successful detections, compared the model against manual inspections, and demonstrated that inspections can be completed significantly faster.

The evidence is there. The audience is impressed.

Now continue.

Scope

These findings apply to one commercial narrow-body aircraft inspected on the ground using high-resolution drone imagery under controlled daylight conditions. They should not yet be generalised to other aircraft types, night-time inspections, or adverse weather conditions.

Assumption

The model assumes that the annotated images used for training accurately represent 99.9% of structural defects encountered during routine maintenance. This assumption is reasonable because the dataset was labelled and verified by certified (Standard XYZ) aircraft maintenance engineers using established inspection criteria, ISO-XYZXYZ… .

Limitations

• The training dataset is based on a single aircraft family, so performance on other aircraft types with different structural layouts has not yet been validated.

• The images were collected from aircraft with standard manufacturer paint schemes. The effect of airline repainting, repair patches and varying surface finishes on detection accuracy remains unknown.

• The dataset contains relatively few examples of rare structural defects.

• Internal damage that is not visible on the aircraft surface cannot be detected using this method.

• Image quality and detection performance may degrade under poor lighting, rain or strong reflections.

Exploration

The next phase of the project will focus on expanding the training dataset to include multiple aircraft manufacturers and families, a wider range of airline fleets and paint schemes, repaired airframes, and aircraft at different stages of operational ageing. The model will also be evaluated under varying environmental conditions, with the addition of thermal and multispectral imagery to investigate the detection of defects that are not visible in conventional optical images.

What happens to your audience here:

They have just seen that you understand your own work deeply enough to describe not only what it has achieved, but also what remains uncertain. You’ve demonstrated confidence. You’re no longer asking them to trust your conclusions. You’re giving them reasons to trust your judgement.

I wish someone had explained this to me when I was beginning my research journey.

I was young and hiding behind polished narratives. I thought I’d be taken seriously only if my results seemed flawless, if every slide looked confident and every conclusion sounded definitive. So much so that sometimes I forgot to include error bars on graphs. (Ironic, right?)

If you know a young researcher who’s preparing their first paper, conference presentation or thesis defence, send this piece to them.

Share

I think they’ll thank you for it one day. Probably, later than you think.

Your Coach,

Yulia

The reaction from many already overworked scientists was rapid:

“Do I need to become a content creator now?!”

• Should scientists learn video editing?

• Will a successful scientific career soon require the ability to produce short-form videos alongside journal articles and grant proposals?

The debate quickly became about the methods of communication: TikTok, video, algorithms, editing software, while largely missing the more fundamental question: what place does communication occupy in science itself?

Leave a comment

Is it part of the job?

For many STEM professionals, communication is still treated as the final step of a process. First comes the research. The experiments, the analysis, the modelling, the publications. Only once the “real work” is done do we turn our attention to communicating it.

Many researchers treat communication as though it were a book cover. The science is the manuscript. The communication is merely the packaging. But communication is actually the language the manuscript is written in. And effective communication, starting with the Research Question and impact, informs the structure. Stories translate the meaning.

The problem is in the attitude towards communication and culture in STEM.

As a STEM communications coach, here’s what I find problematic:

Scientists are already treating communication as a constraint, as something extra. Now if we ask them to go on TikTok, of course they are going to refuse. We’re only giving them another argument against science communication. Whereas, most of my work is (still) about teaching STEM professionals to communicate better among themselves, and then the public.

Subscribe now

A scientific discovery does not create impact at the moment it is made. It creates impact when it enters the knowledge of other people. It must be understood by collaborators, reviewers, funders, policymakers, students, journalists, industry partners, and also, the public whose lives may eventually be affected by it. And to fund new discoveries, the impact of the “old” ones must be shared effectively, progressively and continuously. Not as a final act.

This is why I find the current discussion around science communication slightly frustrating. The question is not whether every scientist should become a video editor. The question is not whether TikTok is good or bad for science. The question is not even whether researchers should spend more time creating content.

Those are tactical questions. That, funnily enough, have created a lot of social media content recently.

The strategic question is whether we continue to see effective communication as something that happens after science, or whether we recognise it as an integral part of the scientific process itself.

The platforms will continue to change. Twenty years ago, nobody was debating TikTok. Twenty years from now, we will likely be communicating through tools that do not yet exist. The technologies are transient.

Perhaps the future of science communication will involve more video. Whichever platforms rise and fall, I hope we move beyond the idea that communication is simply the final chapter of science.

Communication is not what happens after the science is finished. Science is never finished anyway. Effective STEM communication is part of the whole.

It is one of the ways science becomes real.

When preparing this article, I had an interesting conversation with Serena. I invite you to read her Substacks and subscribe.

The Learning Lab

The Quantum Notebook

Science with Serena is a platform designed to make learning science fun, easy, and a part of who you are.

Your Coach,

Yulia

Last week, sitting at the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), I found myself questioning that assumption. A lot.

Observation #1

I listened to the head of a major European space organisation deliver a keynote. By any measure, this was a person at the very top of their field: decades of experience + big achievements + international influence.

And yet, within the first minute, the room was gone.

No one was listening. No one was even looking up. Except for me.

The speech was being read, word for word, from a prepared text.

• The expertise was there.

• The authority was there.

• The audience was not.

Observation #2

Later that day, I watched 2 delegations spend 25 minutes debating a single sentence in a draft text. The rest of 150 delegations were silent. There were political reasons behind the disagreement, of course. But there was also a communication problem. Throughout the session, most delegates were reading prepared statements at one another rather than engaging with one another.

It reminded me of something we rarely discuss in STEM, government, and international organisations:

Communication is not a reward for seniority.

It is a skill.

And like any skill, it requires deliberate practice.

Too often, we assume that brilliant scientists, engineers, executives, and policymakers will naturally become effective communicators as they progress through their careers.

Many do not. I would argue that most do not.

Observation #3

Out of all the speeches and keynotes I heard at COPUOS, only 2 stood out as engaging and clever. Real speeches. Not written text read out loud.

The irony is that I understand why:

At the level of national delegations, government agencies, and international organisations, every word carries weight. Statements are reviewed, negotiated, approved, and carefully crafted. Nobody wants to accidentally create a diplomatic issue, commit to something unintentionally, or send the wrong signal.

• Reading feels safe.

• Reading feels controlled.

• Reading feels precise.

But there is a huge hidden cost.

The moment people start reading, they stop communicating. They have no capacity to read the room. To pace their delivery. To check and keep the attention. The room disengages.

And what was gained in control is lost in impact.

Solution

There is a simple remedy that I teach engineers and scientists.

Do not memorise the exact words.

Memorise the message.

Know the three or four points you absolutely must communicate. Keep the approved wording accessible. But speak to people, not to paper.

You will still be accurate. You will still be compliant.

And people might actually listen.

Subscribe now

Observation #4

As I sat in Vienna, another thought kept coming back to me.

Think about the cost.

Hundreds of highly qualified professionals had travelled from all over the world. Scientists, diplomats, engineers, lawyers, policymakers, agency representatives. Many had crossed oceans and continents to be there for 2 weeks.

• The flights cost money.

• The hotels cost money.

• The conference infrastructure cost money.

• Most importantly, their time cost money.

And yet, during many speeches, the room was mentally elsewhere.

People were checking emails, reading documents, preparing interventions, or looking at their phones. Leaving the room, too, to have small meetings in parallel.

This is a productivity problem.

If (almost) nobody is listening, what exactly are we accomplishing?

If the purpose of gathering experts from around the world is to exchange ideas, build understanding, influence decisions, and move international cooperation forward, then communication cannot be treated as an afterthought.

Conclusion

The greatest communication challenge facing many institutions today is that they have forgotten how to communicate in a way that makes others want to listen, assimilate, and respond. Not merely sit through meetings only to read the proceedings later.

Your Coach,

Yulia

There are more than 150 delegations and non-governmental organisations here. Everybody has a seat at the big table and something important to say. Everybody wants to shake hands with everybody. Everybody is busy and important.

Walking through the corridors feels a bit like entering a beehive (I guess). People move quickly between meeting rooms. Conversations happen in small clusters that form and dissolve just as quickly. One moment you’re speaking with a representative of a space agency, the next with a diplomat, an NGO founder, a professor or someone working on humanitarian projects on the other side of the world. Every lunch break feels like a networking event, and every networking event feels a little bit like a negotiation.

Yesterday alone, I introduced myself some 40 times. Some conversations lasted less than two minutes. Others turned into discussions about partnerships, healthcare access and the future of space technology.

To cut through the crowd, I’m using a simple communication framework. It helps me stand out from the rest of the people introducing themselves exactly like everyone else. Because the truth is that many people here have similar backgrounds and occupy similar positions in different countries and organisations. If I start with my job title, I immediately become one more person in a room full of people with impressive titles.

I need to grab their attention and quickly identify who is genuinely interested in what I’m doing. Equally importantly, I need to filter out people who are not. Time is limited for all of us, and a good introduction should respect that.

The framework is simple.

“I’m on a mission”

It works like this:

I am at UN COPUOS in my capacity as Director of the Global Summit of the AstroAid Foundation. We are a non-governmental organisation aiming to use space-enabled technology for global healthcare access. So my mission statement here is:

“I’m on a mission to democratise healthcare access through space technology to reach the most vulnerable and underserved communities.”

What I like about this framework is that it shifts the conversation away from what you do and towards why you do it.

Most people introduce themselves through their role.

“I’m an aerospace engineer.”

“I’m a project manager at.”

“I’m a PhD student.”

The problem is that roles are rarely memorable. A mission, however, tells people what change you’re trying to create in the world. It tells them why they should care. And allows them to connect (or not, and save time). More importantly, it gives them a reason to continue the conversation.

Where you can use it in STEM

Just like the UN COPUOS meeting, most STEM conferences are packed with people who have similar backgrounds, similar interests and often similar job titles. There are simply too many people to go into details when you first meet. Whether you’re introducing yourself, your project or your organisation, this framework gives people a quick understanding of what matters to you.

It is also particularly useful for pitches. Start-ups use mission statements all the time, but researchers can benefit from them just as much. Whether you’re pitching a research proposal, introducing a new project or presenting an innovation, “We’re on a mission” can work both as an opening statement and as a memorable conclusion.

Subscribe now

The framework is equally useful when you’re representing your organisation at a trade fair, exhibition or conference booth. Instead of waiting for people to ask what you do, you can start a conversation by telling them what you’re trying to achieve.

I’ve also tested the framework and seen it work surprisingly well in job interviews. Engineers often answer the famous “Tell me about yourself” question by giving a chronological account of their education and career. A mission statement immediately gives direction and purpose to your answer. Even if you don’t feel comfortable saying the phrase as is during an interview, preparing it at home will help you formulate more engaging answers.

For example:

“I’m on a mission to make complex technical ideas accessible to decision-makers.”

Or:

“I’m on a mission to make aviation safer through better materials testing.”

Or:

“I’m on a mission to understand how radiation affects astronauts so we can enable long-term human exploration of the Moon and Mars.”

(Or “I want to be a part of the mission to…”)

The same idea can strengthen your LinkedIn profile, your grant applications and even the way you introduce a research project to potential collaborators. Whenever you need people to understand why your work matters, a mission statement can become the anchor of your story.

Sitting in Vienna this week, surrounded by delegates from around the world, I’ve been reminded of something simple. People rarely remember your exact job title. They rarely remember your organisational chart position. They rarely remember your department.

But they do remember what you’re trying to achieve.

So next time someone asks what you do, try answering a slightly different question.

What mission are you on?

Your Coach,

Yulia

What if we measured the real impact of STEM work in the world? How would the way we communicate science and technology change?

What gets measured gets attention. What gets attention gets centred. Centred in the culture of STEM.

Let’s look at the case of STEM academia.

As a researcher, what’s important to measure? The number of grants, publications, their index, citations, number of PhD students under you, awards. That’s a lot of different ways to make up rankings and compare ‘clean’ numbers.

But what would matter to you, both as a person working in STEM and as a recipient of the benefits of scientific work?

Now, before anyone writes to me: I am not saying that publications and citations do not matter. They absolutely do. Scientific impact matters, and many discoveries only reveal their wider societal value years or even decades later.

But these metrics are still proxies. They measure how research travels through the scientific community, not necessarily how it affects people’s lives.

And that got me thinking.

If we have very few ways to recognise and discuss the impact of research on policies, communities, industries, safety, health, or quality of life, then it is no surprise that these aspects often stay in the background (when we talk about science).

No wonder why only too few STEM professionals can articulate the added value of their work. If you are rarely asked to think about impact, how could you be expected to communicate it?

Even as a PhD student, what counts toward the degree is the number of papers, conference proceedings, and talks. Not their quality, not really. And definitely not their societal impact.

You may frown at this point and rightfully think that it would be too early to realistically measure the impact of a PhD project and its results. Maybe. I honestly don’t have a solution to this part. But I am convinced that it lays a strong foundation for how we learn to think about success in STEM.

The metrics we are surrounded by shape the stories we tell about our work.

So what if we measured the contribution of scientific and technical projects not only through citations, but also through the communities they serve, the technologies they enable, the policies they inform, or the lives they improve?

I am sure that such measurements would directly translate into different narratives in STEM. How we communicate science is a direct consequence of what is expected from it.

If the focus shifted even partially towards the bigger picture and benefits, I am sure that science folks would find it easier to talk about the impact of their work. And from impact naturally comes the discussion about limitations. And that builds trust in science.

Want to continue reading about bringing trust back to science? I wrote about it recently, and the article has been one of my most popular so far. Here’s the link: How to bring trust back to science.

What do you think about other parts of STEM? I took the example of academia today (largely based on my European experiences with it). What’s your experience? Drop it in the comments.

Leave a comment

Your Coach,

Yulia

It is a hard task to write a research question. It took me about 6 months to write one for my PhD. Why? Because you need to have gathered substantial knowledge about the topic you’re investigating and understand where your work fits within the field.

How to write a research question?

It starts with the literature review. You identify the knowledge gap you want to fill. You make a rough plan of how you’re going to achieve that. You build a case for how the findings of your research will apply. You think of the limitations. This should give you an understanding of GAPS - METHOD - RESULTS - SCOPE. And you may be ready to write your question.

Remember, it is a broad, open-ended question. There is no one right answer - good answers to research questions are often debatable.

You can use the FINER framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant.

Answer these questions to use the framework:

• Feasible: Can you do this study with available resources? Do not forget the main resource - time.

• Interesting: Who, other than you, will be interested in the study and its results? Think about peers, public institutions, policy makers, funders, and the wider public interests.

• Novel: How will this study contribute with new insights and perspectives to the existing body of knowledge? Think both broadly (e.g. building bridges between parts of science) and narrowly (concrete results).

• Ethical: Will this research be conducted with integrity? I mean, this should be a yes.

• Relevant: Will it be useful in the real world? Consider the applications of your research and findings, and how concretely they will help us.

Where to present or include your RQ?

In written work

I like to add the RQ at the end of my introduction or background knowledge parts. It allows the reader to anchor themselves to the main focus of my research as they go on reading the rest.

Ideally, you should write a specific research question for every significant part of your project - not just one overarching question. You can (should) formulate a question for an article, every thesis chapter (I did that), and your experiment. And it should show in the associated written work.

I remember how when I included a RQ for the paper Regolith-Based Lunar Habitats: An Engineering Approach To Radiation Shielding, my co-authors were not so fond of the idea at first. But I insisted, and the feedback from the editor was “I especially appreciate the structure and clarity of the paper, with the indication of the research question and clear methodology.”

In oral communication

You can summarise your introduction or methodology with a concise research question. Make sure to give your audience enough time to read it first (if you put it up on a slide). Then, read it out loud with them. And then - this is very important - break it down. How does your question cover the scope, application(s), limitations, of your research?

For example

So in my case of radiation protection of astronauts on the Moon with local resources, i.e. using lunar regolith to build habitats, here are a couple of questions I’ve asked.

My overarching research question:

I break it down as:

• To what extent, indicates that this research is mainly quantitative in nature;

• However, effectively, highlights the qualitative value to the findings.

• The application of this research is astronaut habitats,

• Within the context of long-term exposure.

• GCRs and SPEs further specify the scope of the research, while

• Ionising radiation and secondary emissions are the targets of this research.

• Regolith and additional materials are the main focus of the research, and

• Optimisation and habitat construction are the engineering method and focus of this work.

• Finally, minimisation of harm is a constraint on this research.

Subsequent questions that I formulated for different parts of this research (and included in my thesis):

• To what extent is bare regolith effective as shielding from GCRs and SPE for human protection in the lunar environment?

• How much (i.e. by weight, %wt) polymer is required to effectively improve radiation protection of a regolith-based habitat wall on the Moon; and what is more effective - adding polymers as adhesives into the regolith mix or as separate layers inside a regolith habitat?

• To what extent can original multilayer solutions improve radiation protection of a lunar habitat, as compared to the effectiveness of a 50 cm thick bare regolith habitat wall?

• To what extent can numerical results of the polymer-enrichment study with EAC-1A type regolith be validated experimentally?

• How well can regolith protect astronaut habitats from radiation and the extreme thermal environment on the Moon?

Your Coach,

Yulia

Today, I want to get a little bit more technical about the parts of (typical) STEM presentations that can help you build (more) trust.

But first, let’s acknowledge the fact that trust in science took a hit over the last 5-some years. The global pandemic was a major catalyst for spreading the cracks of disbelief. Now, the acceleration of AI technology is making a deeper mark.

I included a single AI-produced cartoon in one of my last workshops, and a participant said,

And he’s not alone. In this age of automation, audiences increasingly interpret visible effort as a signal of sincerity and credibility. Researchers from the cross-university working group ‘Artificially Intelligent Communication of Science’ (AICOS) found that “any kind of ‘AI-ness’ significantly reduced credibility” and that “perceived artificiality and AI disclosure have more influence on trust than the quality of the scientific message itself.”

If you feel differently, drop it into the comments!

Leave a comment

Why is trust important?

While the answer is mostly obvious, I would like to highlight that people decide whether to believe you emotionally first, and analytically second.

Trust is a complex belief, but it starts with the gut feeling when we interact with people.

When your audience trusts you, they are more likely to engage with you intellectually: follow your work, talk to you, start a collaboration, etc.

So about those typical STEM presentation parts?

You know, how in STEM, we typically have the Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, Summary. The solution to building and maintaining trust currently hides in the middle and end. It often lacks in delivery or even gets scratched for lack of time. I suggest bringing it to the front as much as possible.

Be upfront about your limitations:

▹ What limitations does the method have?

▹ What fundamental assumptions were made?

▹ What are likely incorrect interpretations?

▹ What is the extent of your application?

Answering these questions as part of the Method will gain you trust. Then, you can reinforce it when you’re discussing the results, and suggesting improvements. Trust is built when scientists openly discuss uncertainty, assumptions, and limitations.

Many researchers (especially, younger) fear that acknowledging limitations weakens their authority. In reality, the opposite often happens. Audiences become suspicious when a presentation sounds frictionless, absolute, or overly polished.

This is also a recipe for meaningful conversations, where your colleagues will be more open to give you pointers on how to improve, and how to approach those ideas you mention in your Outlook and Future Work parts.

Whereas hidden limitations and polished results lead to tensed Q&A.

This piece touches on something more profound in STEM: how trust in science (as a system) is not built through certainty, but through visible intellectual integrity with certainty.

Subscribe now

Check out my previous pieces about how humour, storytelling and emotions can help you build trust.

Humour: SHTEM: Add Humour to Your STEM Communication

Stories: The “Story + Engineer” Formula

Emotions: Serve Your Audience the Right Emotional Cocktail

Your Coach,

Yulia

And effective communication is definitely a big part of that.

One way your AI tools can already help you make your STEM presentations better is to name them better.

Finding the right catchy title is a skill that requires a trained eye and a lot of exposure to both good and bad examples. We have an overload of the bad ones at any STEM conference or a technical working group. The good ones? Harder to come by.

Use AI to generate better titles (in 3 minutes)

In your prompt, include:

• Your audience archetype

• The reaction you want to trigger

• Your core message (2 sentences max)

Then ask:

Give me 4 alternative catchy titles for this talk.

Pick your top 2.

Ask the AI to refine tone, style, or punch.

Done.

Subscribe now

Today’s piece builds on my older one about naming your scientific presentations. The key take-aways are:

1. Craft your presentation, or write your article, first.

2. Then, name your presentation the way you normally would - i.e. formulate the boring, long, full of technical terms title.

3. Now, make that your subtitle, and craft a catchy telling title. It better be short.

Read the full article, with many examples, here: How to immediately catch everyone’s attention without sacrificing any scientific value.

As you’ve clearly understood, AI tools can help you choose the right catchy title. It can give you options, and fine tune them to your needs.

A functional and catchy title will set you apart from the rest of the crowd. People will want to actively listen to the rest. And your boring technical one is still there - as the subtitle.

The title has a filtering purpose for your audience. A good one immediately informs and catches attention. It will be a conversation starter after your talk.

Your Coach,

Yulia

An engineer from one of the largest European research organisations said this to me yesterday, and it stayed. Because it is so true, and so unfair.

Organisations put obligations on engineers and scientists to communicate their work in many different formats, and rightfully so - it is part of the job, but they do not follow up with support. This gap is rarely discussed, rarely budgeted for, and rarely fixed. It’s left to the person to fix on their own time and money.

I recently ran a LinkedIn poll asking STEM professionals what prevented them from investing in their communication skills. Responses split almost evenly between two answers: “not enough time,” and “the organisation does not prioritise it.” At the same time, I notice how people actively participate in my coaching sessions. They take notes and ask considered questions. Honestly, sometimes I am blown away at the level of consideration that people give to each framework and exercise!

It is clear to me that STEM professionals are constrained. The desire is there. The infrastructure is not.

Subscribe now

Those who develop strong communication skills largely do so on their own time by finding their own resources. Which means the professionals who improve are the ones who already had the bandwidth, the confidence, or the luck to find the right support. Everyone else stays where they are. And the gap widens.

Organisations that leave this to chance are making a choice, whether they frame it that way or not. They are accepting uneven communication as a structural feature of their teams, in environments that depend on precision, alignment, and the ability to make complex ideas accessible across disciplines, agencies, and career levels. The result is not catastrophic failure. Instead, there is a quiet yet palpable underperformance. And damaged reputations.

That kind of loss is hard to quantify and easy to ignore. Until it happens again and again.

Internally, the cost is just as real. When information is not shared clearly, teams fragment. People sit in meetings without a clear sense of direction. Decisions feel opaque. Talented individuals begin to feel disconnected from the broader mission. Over time, that erodes something much harder to rebuild than a missed deadline.

The fix is not complicated, but it does require intent. It means treating effective communication as a core professional competency, not a personality trait some people happen to have. It means building structured opportunities for development at every career stage — not a one-off workshop in the first year, and then nothing. It means deciding, at an organisational level, that this matters.

Until then, it stays where it is now: left to the person.

Share

When preparing this article, I had an interesting conversation with Max King. I invite you to read his Substack and subscribe.

Forwards From A Futurist

Explorations and reflections on our place in the universe; and, the future ahead. This Substack examines the intersection of science, philosophy, exploration, and technology. Drawing on science fiction, astronomy, history, and storytelling, there is an optimistic human future that we must first imagine, and all work hard to create.

Your Coach,

Yulia

Sounds about right, doesn’t it?

And I get it. Essentially, yes - you’re going to speak about your work, product and research. But, and this is something that I’ve never been told when I was an engineering student, a consultant for Airbus, or a PhD researcher: oral STEM communication is an entirely new exercise. It’s not turning your written work into slides with a voiceover.

That’s how all of us address the opportunity to present, isn’t it?

You’ve done the work. You’ve got the materials. Usually, these are an article, spreadsheet, white paper, technical sheet, research proposal, user manual, project plan, etc. All of these are written materials. That you take, and think you need to translate into the form of visual support (typically, slides or maybe a video), and add a descriptive speech of what is shown. That’s it. That’ll be the presentation.

Now, that’s not what we want to get out of an effective exchange, is it?

I want you to generate interest from your presentations that leads to new clients, discussions, actionable feedback, approved funding, and research collaborations. I’ve done that. That’s how I found the people and institutions to back up my PhD. That’s how I later found researchers who worked with me on my particle accelerator experiment. That’s how, after every presentation of my research at conferences and university seminars, I had students line up to do internships with me.

Subscribe now

The thing to do is easy to understand but hard to apply. Treat all oral communication as a chance to build meaning for a stranger. Not a feeling of understanding, but meaning.

• Assume your audience has not read your work.

• Think about their level of STEM exposure, and

• take into account the context in which you’re presenting.

• And then, start from scratch.

• What needs to be said first, and how to arrive at the knowledge transfer and your speaker goal (e.g. strike a deal, collaboration, funding) step by step.

Here’s a clip where I talk about this to Varunika Goyal on her podcast Why Research Matters?

Watch the whole episode on Youtube: “Most Scientists Get This Wrong.”

There are hundreds of ways to go about it: build a narrative arc, start from the end, use a mind map, etc. I do not want to dive into the techniques in this piece. Today, I need you to pause and reflect on the attitude with which you approach oral communication in STEM. I want you to realise that to communicate effectively, you’ve got to put your audience first, check your assumptions and clarify your speaker goals. Then, start crafting the narrative from scratch.

Many of you share with me how your senior advisers and professors have told you the opposite: start with all the information in front of you, and trim it down.

Let me tell you why that’s wrong:

1. It’s nearly impossible. Take all the information you’ve gathered after months and sometimes years of work, and filter out the essentials for an audience you forget to consider. Who has only 15 minutes to assimilate it all.

2. What happens in reality? You trim away what YOU think is not essential. So you’re making the presentation as if it were for you and your senior adviser.

Now, you may think you don’t have the time to invest in such elaborate preparation for each presentation.

But do you have the luxury to waste most of your speaking time and opportunities?

Each such lost opportunity is a lost collaboration, a lost client, and a hit to your reputation. Think of the 200 people listening to you and thinking you’ve just disrespected their time.

Plus, investing in this skill builds the muscle. It does become more natural and easier. You start building effective narratives faster. Like anything else, it gets better with practice.

Your Coach,

Yulia

If you enjoy Talk Smart, it would mean the world to me if you invited friends to subscribe and read with us. If you refer friends, you will receive special benefits.👇

How to participate

1. Share Talk Smart. When you use the referral link below, or the “Share” button on any post, you'll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

2. Earn benefits. When more friends use your referral link to subscribe, you’ll receive special benefits.

• Get the Talk Smart E-guide for 3 referrals 🎯

• Get a 15-min chat for 5 referrals 🔥

• Get a 1-hour 1:1 session for 25 referrals 🤝

Visit the leaderboard

To learn more, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Thank you for helping get the word out about Talk Smart!

This question comes up a lot in my work. And I get it. In STEM, we are trained to be rational. Precise. Objective.

Emotions feel… risky. Not “professional”.

But here’s the reality:

If you remove emotions from your communication, especially in negotiations, you are removing the very thing that drives decisions.

What are STEM negotiations?

When we say “negotiation”, most people immediately think of salary or asking for a promotion.

But that’s only a small part of it in STEM.

• It’s also speaking up in a meeting when you disagree, and not letting the conversation move on too quickly.

• It’s defending the need for funding when the first answer is “there’s no budget”.

• It’s asking to attend a conference when you’ve already been to one that year, and you assume you won’t get approved again.

• It’s pushing for a new hire, a piece of equipment, a change in direction.

And very often, these conversations don’t even happen! Not because the opportunity isn’t there. But because people decide, in advance, that they won’t win.

I’ve done that. And I’ve also done the opposite.

During my PhD, I reached a point where I needed an intern. Not in a vague “it would help” way, but in a very concrete sense: the scope of the work I wanted to do had outgrown what I could realistically handle alone.

The first response I got was immediate:

“There’s no budget.”

I remember that moment clearly, because it would have been very easy to stop there. To take it as a final answer, and move on.

Instead, I stayed in the conversation. Well, first I gave it a break and came back a week later. And then, another time. I wish I could tell you I came back with sharper arguments each time, but that would be a lie - there simply weren’t many. I needed an intern to help finish my work in time.

I came back and showed different emotions each time. This is something I learnt from competitive debate.

It became a conversation about impact. I showed a mix of excitement, frustration and anger.

I got my intern.

Why do emotions matter?

We like to think that decisions in STEM are made on logic alone. Data, arguments, justification.

But when you think about the conversations that stay with you, the ones you replay afterwards, it’s rarely because of the structure of the argument.

It’s because something in that exchange made you react.

You felt convinced. Or challenged. Or slightly uncomfortable. Or inspired.

The conversation had moved from purely rational to something people could actually feel.

That’s the part we tend to underestimate.

Up to 95% of all your decisions are based on emotions.

Another important element, and one we rarely talk about explicitly, is how much we mirror each other. Most people transmit feelings to each other by mimicking each other’s facial expressions, body language, and speech patterns.

So when you try to stay completely neutral, to give nothing away, to keep a “professional” distance, you’re not actually creating clarity.

You’re making it harder for the other person to read you, and to engage with what you’re saying. You’re making them feel nothing. If they are not engaged emotionally, they’re already thinking about their next meeting. You’ve already lost.

That’s why you need to project the emotions you want your counterpart to feel. And you need to be quite explicit about them. No poker face in negotiations!

Which emotions to use, and how?

Empathy

To begin with, you’ve got to make the other side feel good about the situation and themselves. See their part in it. Show empathy and verbalise how you perceive their constraints regarding your demands. Be the first to say it,

• “I see that the budget is tight this quarter.”

• “I understand this has to be justified at a higher level.”

These are small sentences, but they can help you seem more empathetic. They make your approach more considered.

Subscribe now

“Feel good” emotions

Now, provoke the release of endorphins, dopamine and serotonin through humour and laughter. And smile.

• Endorphins create a sense of joy and relaxation.

• Dopamine increases feelings of happiness and motivation.

• Serotonin reduces anxiety.

It might sound secondary, but it isn’t.

When people feel at ease, they listen differently. They are more open to adjusting their position, to exploring options, to continuing the discussion rather than closing it.

Anger

And then there are moments where something stronger is needed. Expressing anger helps!

This is the part that often surprises people. It surprised me when I first came across research showing that anger, when expressed correctly, can help win a negotiation. Not directed at the person, but at the situation, and the lack of a solution.

For example, Marwan Sinaceur and Larissa Tiedens of Stanford University found that negotiators made more concessions when facing counterparts who expressed (but did not necessarily feel) anger.

Because it changes the perceived stakes of the conversation. It emphasises the importance of the matter to both sides.

There is one more emotion that tends to cut through everything else:

Passion

The kind that comes through when you talk about your work, your project, your ideas, and it’s clear that this is not just another task for you.

In STEM, there’s an abundance of it. That’s great! Feel it and use it.

Here’s a clip where I talk about passion in STEM communication to on her podcast Why Research Matters?

Watch the whole episode on Youtube: “Most Scientists Get This Wrong.” Drop your thoughts and questions in the comments!

Leave a comment

Next time you find yourself in one of these situations, whether it’s asking for resources, pushing for an opportunity, or simply trying to be heard in a room, don’t just think about your arguments.

Think about the experience you’re creating for the person in front of you.

Because in the end, that’s what they will remember. And very often, that’s what will shape their decision.

Your Coach,

Yulia

Today, we covered the information overload. What shall we do next time?

Every live session with me will be short and fast-paced. Focusing on one topic and answering your questions.

P.S. - solving the blocked chat issue! In the meantime, drop your questions and suggestions for the next live in the comments, or DM me.

Leave a comment

Your Coach,

Yulia

Get more from Dr. Yulia Akisheva in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app