Dialogue versus Deficit: What model of science communication works best in a digital age?

Editor's Notes

• #2 Hi, I’m Vicky and today my presentation is going to look at two methods that can be used in any modality of science communication to serve a wide range of goals, these are the dialogue model and the deficit model. First I will discuss the dialogue model and then I will discuss the deficit model. Based on that I will conclude which model works best in the digital age.
• #3 So firstly looking at the dialogue model. This adopts a two way system towards communication, it is a bidirectional form of communication in science. This approach creates interactions. Person to person interactions, person to person within a group interactions, person to group interactions or group to group interactions and so on (Sanden & Meijman, 2008).
• #4 Ok so lets take cancer as an area of interest. Within this model, there are scientists who may have scientific facts at their disposal about cancer and then there are also members of the public who have local or so-called lay knowledge of cancer. And so both kinds of knowledge are exchanged between these two groups.
• #5 Now dialogue should not be confused with discussion, a discussion warrants convincing but the dialogue model is not about convincing or swaying ones views at all. It is about informing oneself and also informing the other group about different facts, theories, concepts and so on. The dialogue model initiates and maintains a safe environment.
• #6 This allows for the sharing of thoughts and insights and also fosters respect between all parties. “Scientists have a chance to embody mutual learning in the dialogue” (Houtman et al., 2021) and the public have the opportunity to speak to experts and in some cases role models. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. The first thing that sprung to mind when I thought about dialogue and the digital age was Facebook.
• #7 Facebook provides an activity system which creates a safe community for its users to intellectually engage in science via interaction through posts, likes, comments and sharing. And so there is a two way system. However, it is important to note Facebook can be susceptible to one way communication as it allows features such as blocking users or comments.
• #8 Notably though, there is an opportunity for the science communicator (i.e., scientist) to learn from the broader community, which can improve their research and subsequently reframe the way in which it is contextualized. The dialogue model captures more lay peoples attention with communication activities that involve more direct public engagement with science.
• #9 Scientists can share their work to millions now with this model. This can in turn can generate funding from non-traditional sources and help attract more talented students or staff that can directly increase scientific productivity. As this model is inclusive citizen scientists can play a role in data collection or data analysis for example(Cooke et al., 2017)
• #10 These citizen scientists may be a group of students or interns, or even people participating via online activities. On top of this, dialogue is very effective in influencing opinions and also behaviours as there is a mutual respect established. Efforts to engage in dialogue in citizen science are most likely to cause real and lasting behavioural change in people who participate (Monroe et al. 2008)
• #11 An example of this is in environment education. Communication activities aim to establish a dialogue between audiences and Worldwide Fund For Nature in order to share experiences, priorities, and planning, and are delivered in informal settings (Monroe et al., 2008). This has led to the adoption of changes to the lifestyles of regular people and scientists alike. However, scientists are reluctant to engage in it.
• #12 In one study science cafes were set up and it was found that scientists were opposed to participating because it was time consuming, outside of the scope of their work and they couldn’t see any benefit (Ko, 2016). These cafes were in person and the scientist still showed reluctance, so it begs the question would this model of communication prosper in this digital age if one side of the communication system is reluctant.
• #13 Now switching over to look at the deficit model. In this model, the scientists and other experts are seen to possess crucial knowledge that non-scientists lack, and the purpose of science communication is to “fill the knowledge gaps” in a flow of information from the expert to the layperson.
• #14 The deficit model assumes that science communication enhances public understanding in areas they don’t have knowledge in. The main presumption that this assumption is based off is that if the public knew all about what scientists, engineers and so do, they would approve. And so the model adopts the mechanism of a one way communication system to make the public knowledgeable.
• #15 The deficit model is simplistic in structure as there is only one stream of information which is communicated. This information is from knowledgeable and educated professionals who pass their knowledge onto the general public. This reduces the extra “noise” around topics, it allows scientists to communicate serious science related issues without room for fake news, misinformation or opinions.
• #16 As well as this, the deficit model works well for policy design. This model likely persists because of the desire among scientists and politicians for policy designs that can be easily implemented. With its narrow focus on public knowledge levels, the deficit model approach has the benefit of identifying a specific source for the lagging public support for a specific science area.
• #17 It pinpoints public ignorance as the problem and proposes a single and straightforward solution, that is, eliminate ignorance through education. An example of this is the HSE’s communication during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this case the public lacked knowledge about the Covid-19 virus and the HSE pinpointed the areas which needed education and provided useful health information to the masses.
• #18 Majority of scientists perform better in this model as graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. And so, the experts are not properly trained to have a dialogue with the average person about areas relating to science.
• #19 This model receives poor public engagement in the digital age. People are becoming more and more inquisitive and this is being aided by the technologies of the 21st century. People want to be part of these science conversations, they want to give their two cents on topics they’re knowledgeable on while also learning from the experts in those topics.
• #20 Based on the points I have mentioned throughout it is obvious that the dialogue model suits our digital age better. However, there should be a model which adopts strengths from each and merges both models together. A move towards this fusion is the Deficit 2.0 Model was proposed in 2022 by Broad & Biltekoff which looks at the communication on cellular agriculture.
• #21 In this model science communicators recognize that cultural worldviews influence public perceptions, but they still believe that negative public reactions are largely the product of public misunderstanding. Public concerns are taken more seriously but they are still seen as a challenge to be overcome through targeted messaging, rather than as something to be understood or respected. This is a step in the right direction but it is not enough, more research is needed in this area and so for the moment the dialogue model works best in the digital age. Thanks for listening!