Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/28356
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/28356
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It really isn't possible to bone up on the vocabulary of a field in a few hours. The vocabulary of a field exists to express experiences, distinctions, and idea that are unique to that field. In other words, its vocabulary is tied to its history and community, and you can't bone up on those things in a few hours.

Two things seem to work as well as you can expect them to (this is based more on observing the results rather than the process, since my journalism career was brief). One is to find an expert in the field who is adept at explaining things in terms the public can understand. This is why networks like CNN have their stable of pet scientists that they trot out whenever they need some newsworthy scientific event explained to the public.

The other is for a journalist to devote their career to reporting on a particular field, so that they actually do have the time to bone up on the ideas and the vocabulary of the field and the background to understand and explain new developments when they arise.

In other words, you need someone, either the subject or the journalist, to have one foot on both sides of the divide. If you are not already the journalist with one foot on both sides, your best bet would be to look for an interview subject who has. Devoting you research time to finding that person, rather than trying to become an overnight expert, might be a better use of your time.

Original score: 4