Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models
This chapter reviews the discussion in science communication circles of models for public communication of science and technology (PCST). It questions the claim that there has been a large-scale shift from a ‘deficit model’ of communication to a ‘dialogue model’, and it demonstrates the survival of the deficit model along with the ambiguities of that model. Similar discussions in related fields of communication, including the critique of dialogue, are briefly sketched. Outlining the complex circumstances governing approaches to PCST, the author argues that communications models often perceived to be opposed can, in fact, coexist when the choices are made explicit. To aid this process, the author proposes an analytical framework of communication models based on deficit, dialogue and participation, including variations on each.
KeywordsCommunication models deficit model dialogue model participation model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk society—Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cartlidge, E. (2007). New formula for science education. Physics Today, January, 10–11.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
- Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a deficit model of science communication. Paper presented to PCST Working Symposium, Beijing, June 2005.Google Scholar
- Dixon, B. (2007). What do we need to say to each other? New Scientist, 6 January, 46–47.Google Scholar
- Einsiedel, E. (2000). Understanding ‘publics’ in public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust—The public, science and technology. London, New York: Routledge, 205–215.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge—The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Thousand Oaks, California, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
- Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right—The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Grunig, J. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- Hanssen, L. (2004). The representation of science. In Public communication on science and technology—Some insights from the Netherlands. Amsterdam: National Organisation for Public Science Communication, 64–67Google Scholar
- Harney, M. (2003). Towards a civil science—A mission for the 21st century: An address to the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewenstein, B. (2005). Models of public communication of science and technology. Manuscript retrieved on 25 November 2007 from http://communityrisks.cornell.edu/BackgroundMaterials/Lewenstein2003.pdf.
- McQuail, D. (1997). Audience analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Peters, H. P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Peters, J. D. (2000). Speaking into the air—A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Research International (2000). Science and the public: Mapping science communication activities. London: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved on 18 November 2007 from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003418.pdf.
- Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (2007). Mission statement. Retrieved on 18 November 2007 from http://www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org.
- Rosen, J. (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- SCST (Select Committee on Science and Technology) (2000). Science and society. Third report. London: House of Lords. Retrieved on 19 November 2007 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
- Technology Foresight Ireland (1999). Health and life sciences—Report from the Health and Life Sciences Panel. Dublin: Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Forfás.Google Scholar
- Trench, B. (2006). Science communication and citizen science—How dead is the deficit model? Paper presented to Scientific Culture and Global Citizenship, 9th International Conference on PCST, Seoul, Korea, 17–19 May 2006.Google Scholar
- Trench, B. (2008). Internet: Turning science communication inside-out? In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Trench, B. & Junker, K. (2001). How scientists view their public communication. Paper presented to Trends in Science Communication Today, 6th International Conference on PCST, Geneva, Switzerland, January 2001. Retrieved on 25 November 2007 from http://visits.web.cern.ch/visits/pcst2001/proc/Trench-Junker.doc.
- Wellcome Trust (2006). Meeting of minds—Engaging debate at the Engaging Science conference. Wellcome News, 47 (June 2006), 12–13.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science—Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science—Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar