PIO FORUM

by Dennis Meredith

PIO Rabbis: A Proposal

We science writers are certainly a collegial lot, and like my fellow PIOs, I’ve been happy to give advice to colleagues new to their jobs. However, I’ve come to realize that for PIOs needing help, making such mentoring connections is invariably haphazard, and they are often unsure where to turn for advice on the sometimes complex problems they encounter. These problems might include institutional politics, editorial issues, media strategy, career guidance, and nuts-and-bolts questions about setting up an e-mail newsletter or persuading a reluctant researcher to cooperate with reporters.

Sometimes even experienced PIOs find themselves at the limit of their experience, and while they enjoy a more extensive network of advisors, they might still want to seek specialized advice and not know where to turn.
So, in this column I’d like to propose that NASW create a more formal cadre of volunteer advisors, which I’ve dubbed “PIO Rabbis,” (PIORs)—named for the system among cops in which rookies seek out experienced mentors to guide them.

In what follows, I’ll sketch out my initial ideas about the structure and features of the PIOR service, with the hope that my colleagues will let me know whether they believe that it’s basically a good idea and where the holes in my thinking might lie. Of course, recognizing that no good deed, or idea, goes unpunished, I’ll be willing to get the service rolling, if it seems viable. As I see them, the key issues seem to be:

Eligibility. Basically, anybody is eligible who believes they have something to contribute to help fellow PIOs. Importantly, a Rabbi need not be one whose head is grey and/or balding and who fondly remembers the feel of carbon paper. Also, Rabbis can and should come from a range of institutions, including universities, foundations, corporations and government labs, since each of these represent unique environments with unique problems.

Journalists are emphatically welcome as Rabbis! In fact, they could view service as a PIO Rabbi not only as an aid to PIOs, but to their fellow journalists. After all, sound advice for PIOs from journalists could reduce the number of hitches that sometimes occur in the interchange between PIOs and journalists. And, for journalists, there’s the admirably selfish motive that establishing helpful relationships with PIOs can enhance their contacts among the PIO community.

Accessibility. Rabbis would volunteer by filling out and submitting an online form that would enter them into a PIOR database on the NASW site. The form would include a brief bio and a checkoff list of advisory services a Rabbi is willing to provide. PIOs seeking advice could search the database for the Rabbi with the right qualifications to help with the problem he/she has encountered. The PIOR site would be managed by a volunteer administrator who would proof applications for completeness and post them on the site. The PIOR administrator would not act as an arbiter of who can be listed, but only as a facilitator.

Commitment. PIORs can sign up for as long or short a term as they wish, with the option of removing their listing whenever they wish. Also, PIORs can reasonably expect only occasional phone calls or e-mails from those seeking their help. And in signing up, they can place whatever limits they wish on scope and extent of consults.

For journalists who volunteer as Rabbis, it would be understood that their service doesn’t constitute a chance for PIOs to pitch stories, but only to seek a reporter’s point of view on such issues as handling a story or reporter-related issue. Of course, there is nothing to prevent journalists from negotiating with PIOs to do a story that turns out to be irresistibly juicy.

Duties: Whatever service or advice the Rabbi is willing to provide. The checkoff list mentioned above could be quite extensive, detailing the kinds of help a Rabbi is willing to offer. These services could include tactical advice on a problem with a researcher, guidance on how to manage freelancing, or editorial review of an article. Of course, Rabbis would not be expected to routinely edit an advisee’s work. Nor would Rabbis be expected to act as referees or arbitrators between PIOs, or between PIOs and faculty, etc. However, when asked by one or both sides of a dispute, a Rabbi could offer advice for settling the problem.

Pay. None but the psychic reward of helping fellow PIOs. However, it might be possible to winkle funds from NASW for honorary geegaws and gimcracks commemorating their honorable service. Also, any Rabbi would be permitted to accept token rewards from grateful advisees. For example, an advisee might offer the Rabbi a refreshing beverage of the Rabbi’s choice upon their next meeting.

Liability. Also none. It should be explicitly stated that Rabbis will not be held legally or ethically liable for the outcome of their counsel. It is entirely up to the advisee to decide whether to take a Rabbi’s advice. What’s more, an advisee would have the option of consulting as many Rabbis as he/she wishes on a given question. And, Rabbis could recommend other colleagues whom they believe have the appropriate expertise.

Confidentiality. All consultations between Rabbis and advisees would be considered confidential unless both parties agreed on specific conditions of disclosure. Thus, the PIOR service would complement the nasw-pr listserv, where discussion is public.

One exception to confidentiality might be if a journalist-Rabbi explicitly negotiates permission from an advisee to follow up on a story they discuss. Also, the advisee might give permission for the problem and its solution to be shared with the science writing community in the pages of ScienceWriters columns—provided that names and identifying details are omitted.

So, that’s the concept. Please drop me a note at meredith@nasw.org with any comments, ideas, or brickbats. For example, do you think the provisional name appropriate? Alternative names to Rabbis might be Counselors, Mentors, Guides or “Legends”—the term used by the San Diego chapter of PRSA. And most importantly, I'd like to know whether PIOs would, indeed, use the service. If the PIOR idea seems workable and useful, I'll be happy to propose it to the NASW Board at their next meeting. And if the board agrees, we will work to create a service that will offer a rich resource of experience to our colleagues.

Finally, I should give fair warning: if we do launch PIORs, I am not above brazen “persuasion” to enlist volunteers.

#

Dennis Meredith is director of the Office of Research Communications at Duke University. He can be reached at dennis.meredith@duke.edu or 919-681-8054. He welcomes comments and topic suggestions for future columns.

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.