Often, we communicate science in a linear fashion, which suggests as if the right conclusion is achieved in a single swoop, rather than communicating science as it is - a dynamic, exploratory process of evolution. Such discourse lacks understandability of how a researcher came up with a given workflow design, and does not communicate the lessons learned during the exploratory process of scientific investigation. For example, 'why land cover categories are synthesized the way they are and not some other way' is a question we are often unable to answer with the contemporary research communication. Similarly, how two researchers with the same input data and methods came up with different conclusions can only be understood through their process of scientific investigation. I am proposing that communicating the exploratory, process-oriented view of construction and evolution of scientific knowledge would support a deeper understanding (knowledge-how and -why) of the meaning of scientific knowledge. My research tries to demonstrate these ideas through a prototype (AdvoCate - Adventures of Categories) that models land cover categories and changes in them, and connects them to the exploratory scientific practices, including trial and error, debates, conceptual changes and revisions. We further demonstrate that how knowledge lurking behind the process of science can enable us to answer questions that we were unable to do so earlier.