The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?
Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) England), 2016-05, Vol.25 (4), p.400-414 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 414 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 400 |
container_title | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Simis, Molly J. Madden, Haley Cacciatore, Michael A. Yeo, Sara K. |
description | Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0963662516629749 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785216233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0963662516629749</sage_id><sourcerecordid>4058088721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-c6eed02a229f6f70d8025c1be780ef9a8323f1a6613b70a8decd2e780ee8e023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvniTgxctqPtok60Wk-AUFLxWPS5pMbMrupia7h_737rZVRPAyc3i_94Z5CJ1Tck2plDckF1wINqHdyOU4P0BDygXNhCD5IRr2ctbrA3SS0ooQwsdMHKMBk71dqCF6my8Bl20EHByOuvGh1qVvNrf4fbnBNkDCTUdYcN74BlfBQonXEJNPDfY1TsZDbQCbUFVt7c024e4UHTldJjjb7xGaPz7Mp8_Z7PXpZXo_y8yY0yYzAsASphnLnXCSWEXYxNAFSEXA5Vpxxh3VQlC-kEQrC8ayrQgKCOMjdLWLXcfw2UJqisonA2WpawhtKqhUE0YF47xDL_-gq9DG7tctlTOqWK46iuwoE0NKEVyxjr7ScVNQUvSVFX8b7ywX--B2UYH9MXxX3AHZDkj6A35d_S_wC1SCh7U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1789218298</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Simis, Molly J. ; Madden, Haley ; Cacciatore, Michael A. ; Yeo, Sara K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Simis, Molly J. ; Madden, Haley ; Cacciatore, Michael A. ; Yeo, Sara K.</creatorcontrib><description>Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-6625</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0963662516629749</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27117768</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Attitude ; Attitudes ; Audiences ; Communication ; Community relations ; Engineering ; Engineers ; Graduate studies ; History of medicine and histology ; Information Dissemination ; Information processing ; Knowledge ; Models, Theoretical ; Perceptions ; Public Opinion ; Public Policy ; Rationality ; Research methodology ; Science ; Scientists ; Social research ; Social sciences ; Training</subject><ispartof>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2016-05, Vol.25 (4), p.400-414</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2016.</rights><rights>Copyright Sage Publications Ltd. May 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-c6eed02a229f6f70d8025c1be780ef9a8323f1a6613b70a8decd2e780ee8e023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-c6eed02a229f6f70d8025c1be780ef9a8323f1a6613b70a8decd2e780ee8e023</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662516629749$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662516629749$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27866,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27117768$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Simis, Molly J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madden, Haley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cacciatore, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeo, Sara K.</creatorcontrib><title>The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?</title><title>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</title><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><description>Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.</description><subject>Attitude</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Audiences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Community relations</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineers</subject><subject>Graduate studies</subject><subject>History of medicine and histology</subject><subject>Information Dissemination</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Social research</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>0963-6625</issn><issn>1361-6609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvniTgxctqPtok60Wk-AUFLxWPS5pMbMrupia7h_737rZVRPAyc3i_94Z5CJ1Tck2plDckF1wINqHdyOU4P0BDygXNhCD5IRr2ctbrA3SS0ooQwsdMHKMBk71dqCF6my8Bl20EHByOuvGh1qVvNrf4fbnBNkDCTUdYcN74BlfBQonXEJNPDfY1TsZDbQCbUFVt7c024e4UHTldJjjb7xGaPz7Mp8_Z7PXpZXo_y8yY0yYzAsASphnLnXCSWEXYxNAFSEXA5Vpxxh3VQlC-kEQrC8ayrQgKCOMjdLWLXcfw2UJqisonA2WpawhtKqhUE0YF47xDL_-gq9DG7tctlTOqWK46iuwoE0NKEVyxjr7ScVNQUvSVFX8b7ywX--B2UYH9MXxX3AHZDkj6A35d_S_wC1SCh7U</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Simis, Molly J.</creator><creator>Madden, Haley</creator><creator>Cacciatore, Michael A.</creator><creator>Yeo, Sara K.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?</title><author>Simis, Molly J. ; Madden, Haley ; Cacciatore, Michael A. ; Yeo, Sara K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-c6eed02a229f6f70d8025c1be780ef9a8323f1a6613b70a8decd2e780ee8e023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Attitude</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Audiences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Community relations</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineers</topic><topic>Graduate studies</topic><topic>History of medicine and histology</topic><topic>Information Dissemination</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Social research</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Simis, Molly J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madden, Haley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cacciatore, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeo, Sara K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Simis, Molly J.</au><au>Madden, Haley</au><au>Cacciatore, Michael A.</au><au>Yeo, Sara K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?</atitle><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>400</spage><epage>414</epage><pages>400-414</pages><issn>0963-6625</issn><eissn>1361-6609</eissn><abstract>Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>27117768</pmid><doi>10.1177/0963662516629749</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0963-6625 |
ispartof | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2016-05, Vol.25 (4), p.400-414 |
issn | 0963-6625 1361-6609 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785216233 |
source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; PAIS Index |
subjects | Attitude Attitudes Audiences Communication Community relations Engineering Engineers Graduate studies History of medicine and histology Information Dissemination Information processing Knowledge Models, Theoretical Perceptions Public Opinion Public Policy Rationality Research methodology Science Scientists Social research Social sciences Training |
title | The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T03%3A51%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20lure%20of%20rationality:%20Why%20does%20the%20deficit%20model%20persist%20in%20science%20communication?&rft.jtitle=Public%20understanding%20of%20science%20(Bristol,%20England)&rft.au=Simis,%20Molly%20J.&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=400&rft.epage=414&rft.pages=400-414&rft.issn=0963-6625&rft.eissn=1361-6609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0963662516629749&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4058088721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1789218298&rft_id=info:pmid/27117768&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0963662516629749&rfr_iscdi=true |