Advertisement

Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models

  • Brian Trench

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Communication models deficit model dialogue model participation model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society—Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Brecht, B. (1979/80). Radio as a means of communication—A talk on the function of radio. Screen, 20(3–4), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartlidge, E. (2007). New formula for science education. Physics Today, January, 10–11.Google Scholar
  5. Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a deficit model of science communication. Paper presented to PCST Working Symposium, Beijing, June 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Dixon, B. (2007). What do we need to say to each other? New Scientist, 6 January, 46–47.Google Scholar
  8. Durodié, B. (2003). Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of the new ‘experts’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 6(4), 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Einsiedel, E. (2007). Editorial: Of publics and science. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402 (2 December), C81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right—The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gross, A. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grunig, J. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F. & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, R. G. and Garvin, T. (2003). Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. McQuail, D. (1997). Audience analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Peters, J. D. (2000). Speaking into the air—A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (2007). Mission statement. Retrieved on 18 November 2007 from http://www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org.
  28. Rosen, J. (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sandman, P. (1987). Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal, 13(9), 21–22. Retrieved on 18 November 2007 from http://www.psandman.com/articles/facing.htm.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Stoker, K. & Tusinki, K. (2006). Reconsidering public relations’ infatuation with dialogue: Why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(2/3), 156–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. (2005). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. Van Sanden, M. & Meijman, F. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science—An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wellcome Trust (2006). Meeting of minds—Engaging debate at the Engaging Science conference. Wellcome News, 47 (June 2006), 12–13.Google Scholar
  39. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science—Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  40. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science—Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  41. Wynne B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationsDublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations