MODELS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SOCIETY: DEFICIT, DIALOGUE, PARTICIPATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202562217Keywords:
model of communication, science, deficit, dialogue, participation, popularization, enlightenment, engagement, mass media, citizen scienceAbstract
Science communication is a broad field of empirical and applied studies and of theoretical reflection. There are three main models of science communication: deficit, dialogue and participation. These models assume different goals and mechanisms of communication, as well as different social positions. The deficit model was dominant throughout the second half of the 20th century. The deficit model assumes that the key characteristic of the public is the deficit of scientific knowledge. The consequence of the deficit of scientific knowledge in public is a wary or hostile attitude towards science. The goal of communication is to overcome the deficit, and the mechanisms are enlightenment and popularization. The dialogue model of communication emerged in the 90s as an alternative to the deficit model. The goal of the dialogue model is to ensure mutual understanding and trust between scientists and the public. The inclusion of the scientific community in public dialogue ensures trust. The mechanisms are public debate, expertise, the visibility of scientists, and the engagement of people outside the academy in scientific communication. In the dialogue model the scientific community loses its separate position and communicate on equal terms with other communities. The participation model was developed a little later than the dialogue model. The participation model involves the engagement of society in the process of management and production of science. One of the mechanisms of participation is "citizen science". The social position of scientific community becomes blurred and amorphous. We suppose that the basic matrix of science communication is the deficit model. Some specific mechanisms of the dialog and participation models can be demanded in practice, but the asymmetry of access and possession of scientific knowledge is the starting point that justifies both the existence of science as a separate institution and the very need for communication with non-academic communities.
References
Астахова А.С. Публичная репрезентация профессионального сообщества: популяризация науки и общественные дебаты // Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2013. Т. 37. № 3. С. 179–189.
Булавинова М.П. Новые формы участия общества в науке и технологиях: обзор зарубежных исследований // Науковедческие исследования. 2021. № 1. С. 4–24.
Вахрамеева З.В. СМИ, наука, общество (обзор зарубежных публикаций) // Знак: проблемное поле медиаобразования. 2018. № 3 (29). С. 154–167.
Евсеева Я.В. Научная коммуникация в современном мире. (Обзор) // Социальные и гуманитарные науки. Отечественная и зарубежная литература. Серия 11: Социология. 2022. № 2. С. 12–23.
Astahova, A.S. “Publichnaya reprezentaciya professional’nogo soobshchestva: populyarizaciya nauki i obshchestvennye debaty” [Public Representation Of The Professional Community: Popularization Of Science And Public Debate], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2013, no. 3 (37), pp. 179–189. (In Russian)
Bodmer, W.F. (1985) Public Understanding of Science. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group endoursed by the Council of the Royal Society, London: The Royal Society, 1985.
Bodmer, W.F. et al. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Birkbeck College, 1986.
Bucchi, M., Trench, B. “Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords”, Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 2016, no. 7 (2), pp. 151–168.
Bulavinova, M.P. “Novye formy uchastiya obshchestva v nauke i tekhnologiyah: obzor zarubezhnyh issledovanij” [New Forms of Public Participation in Science and Technology: Review of Foreign Studies], Naukovecheskie issledovaniya, 2021, no. 1, pp. 4–24. (In Russian)
Callon, M. “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge”, Science, Technology, Society, 1999, no. 2, pp. 81–94.
Cavalier, D., Kennedy, E.B. (eds.) The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science. Tempe, AZ: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, 2016.
Evseeva, Ya.V. “Nauchnaya kommunikaciya v sovremennom mire. (Obzor)” [Science Communication in the Contemporary World. (Literature Review)], Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology, 2022, no. 2, pp. 12–23. (In Russian)
Holden, C. “From PUS to PEST”, Science, 2002, no. 5591 (298), p. 49.
Hilgartner, S. “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses”, Social Studies of Science, 1990, no. 3 (20), pp. 519–539.
“House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Science and Society. Third Report of Session 1999–2000” [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm, accessed on 01.05.2024].
Irwin, A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London; New York: Routledge, 1995.
Kessler, S.H., Schäfer, M.S., Johann, D., Rauhut, H. “Mapping Mental Models of Science Communication: How Academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland Understand and Practice Science Communication”, Public understanding of science, 2022, no. 6 (31), pp. 711–731.
Phillips, L., Carvalho, A., Doyle, J. (eds.) Citizen Voices. Performing Public Participation in Science and Environment Communication. Bristol; Chicago: Intellect, 2012.
Pitrelli, N. “The Crisis of the Public Understanding of Science in Great Britain”, Journal of Science Communication, 2003, no. 1 (2), pp. 1–9.
Thomas, G., Durant, J. “Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science”, Scientific Literacy Papers, 1987, no. 1, pp. 1–14.
Vakhrameeva, Z.V. “Smi, nauka, obshchestvo (obzor zarubezhnyh publikacij)” [Mass Media, Science, Public (A Review Of Foreign Literature)], Znak: problemnoe pole mediaobrazovanija, 2018, no. 3 (29), pp. 157–167. (In Russian)
Wynne, B., Irwin, A. (eds.) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
