After forty years teaching young researchers, John Steiner, MD, MPH / MSPH, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, has witnessed scientific research evolve in a number of ways. What hasn’t changed, he says, is how unprepared many early-career researchers are in their writing skills.
“People trained in the sciences come to faculty jobs and discover they need to be writers. That was true when I started, and it’s true today,” says Steiner.
To address this gap, Steiner and colleague, Sarah Brewer, PhD, MPA, assistant professor of family medicine and co-director of the Training, Education, and Mentorship (TEaM) Core at the Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), have created two writing seminar series to help learners and researchers develop the skills they need to communicate clearly.
Why technology can’t substitute for critical thinking
A range of solutions have been proposed, including tapping into the power offered by artificial intelligence (AI), but both faculty members agree that’s not a viable option.
“AI cannot replace the fundamental meaning-making that is required to move from question to answer to real-world implication,” Brewer says.
Steiner added that while AI may serve as a useful tool, it remains “a bright, shiny object” and not a solution to the challenges involved in scientific writing.
Brewer also has concerns about what is lost when someone uses AI before they fully understand the writing process and how it paves the way for insights. “My research doesn’t matter if I can’t understand and articulate its meaning,” she says.
This emphasis on creating meaning in the writing process before turning to outside tools is part of the foundational philosophy that shaped the writing seminar series led by Steiner and Brewer.
Essential role of narrative structure in research
Brewer believes writing is a core part of her research process, not a task that happens after the research is complete.
“You cannot understand your numbers unless you can put them into words,” she says, noting that writing helps shape ideas, clarify results, and refine next steps.
Both Brewer and Steiner affirm that strong communication is not an optional skill for researchers; it’s how scientific work becomes meaningful, impactful, and fundable, which is why they emphasize how critical thinking and writing are intertwined.
Centering storytelling at the heart of science
The pair also reject the idea that storytelling belongs only to the humanities. In fact, Steiner says, every research article is a “highly structured story,” one that has a distinct beginning, middle, and end, pointing to the specific narrative structures necessary for scientific rigor.
Brewer takes a broader perspective: “Human beings are narrative-driven beings, and we tell stories to impart meaning.”
The fact that writing skills continue to be underemphasized compared with other facets of research, like methods or data analysis, motivates both instructors.
As Brewer puts it, “we often neglect writing as a key component to the work of researchers. We think a lot about our methods, data collection and bias, generalizability … All of that only matters if we can write it well.”
They argue that writing should be integrated into scientific training, supported by institutions, and taught through formats which reflect how real writing happens — like the small-group collaborative writing groups in their writing seminars.
Steiner and Brewer say an omnipresent misconception is that writing should be a solitary activity. In their view, effective learning originates in small, trusted groups that offer reciprocal critique.
Brewer adds, “we do team science; we should do team writing too.”
