Table 1 - uploaded by Brian Trench
Content may be subject to copyright.
Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models
Source publication
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 th...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... contextual model implies an active public: it requires a rhetoric of reconstruction in which public understanding is the joint creation of scientific and local knowledge ... In this model, communication is not solely cognitive; ethical and political concerns are always relevant. Table 1 shows a grid centred on a triad of models of science communication that distinguishes between dialogue and participation on the basis of my earlier discussion of the ambiguities and limits of dialogue in many of its current applications. The three models are: ...
Context 2
... Table 1, the three models are presented in column 3 with 'upstream' and 'downstream' associations ranged to left and right, respectively. The horizontal alignment of models and their corresponding public orientations is intended to indicate the relative emphasis on the science- or public-centredness of the process. ...
Similar publications
![Figure 3. Bayesian analysis of van der Linden et al. [2015]. The CI...](profile/Sander-Van-Der-Linden/publication/321757775/figure/fig3/AS:570861636014080@1513115428233/Bayesian-analysis-of-van-der-Linden-et-al-2015-The-CI-gives-the-central-95-credible_Q320.jpg)
In this paper, we respond to the critiques presented by Kahan [2017]. Contrary to claims that the scientific consensus message did not significantly influence the key mediator and outcome variables in our model, we show that the experiment in van der Linden et al. [2015] did in fact directly influence key beliefs about climate change. We also clari...
Citations
... Esta evolución ha cambiado la noción de público a la de usuarios, destacando la importancia de la interactividad en la comunicación mediada por las TIC. Trench (2008) ofrece un marco analítico para entender los diferentes enfoques que los científicos adoptan en la comunicación pública de la ciencia, relacionando estos enfoques con modelos de comunicación específicos. Propone tres modelos dominantes (déficit, dialogo y participación) y sus variantes, que reflejan cómo los científicos se relacionan con sus públicos. ...
La evidente actualidad del objeto de estudio, y la necesidad demandante de circunscribir los paradigmas teóricos, propuestas metodológicas y aplicaciones prácticas propias de una comunidad científica heterogénea, motivan la recopilación y presentación de las perspectivas y desafíos sobre la planificación de la comunicación estratégica de la región Iberoamericana. Este impulso nace en la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador, animada por los grupos de investigación en Comunicación, Educación y Ambiente (GICEA) y GAMELAB UPS que se proponen contribuir al análisis y reflexión sobre estas temáticas, como un continuum del primer libro “Perspectivas transdisciplinarias sobre la comunicación estratégica digital” (De-Santis y Torres-Toukoumidis, 2022), y el estudio de la planificación en campañas publicitarias digitales (Armendáriz González et al., 2022). En particular, se presentan contribuciones de 21 autores afiliados a 16 instituciones de educación superior e investigación de Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador, España, México y Portugal, incluyendo a Perú, Puerto Rico, Venezuela si se considera también su nacionalidad. Los 12 capítulos que conforman el libro son estructurados en tres secciones que tratan aspectos relevantes como la relación entre planificación y comunicación, y la aplicación de la planificación en la comunicación estratégica de distintos tipos de organizaciones, para concluir con una panorámica
sobre los paradigmas, experiencias y reflexiones regionales mediante
casos específicos de 5 países.
... Since then multiple deliberations have taken place regarding the terms 'public', 'understanding', 'participation' and 'science' alongside the development of frameworks like Responsible Research and Innovation [Chakraborty & Giuffredi, 2019;Chakraborty, Baumann & Hultman, 2020], and public participation in science (once again, mostly in the Global North), which now largely recognise publics as key stakeholders in science. Specifically, the participation model envisages a multi-directional form of communication, which is characterised by two-way conversations between not only scientists and non-expert publics, but also amongst different kinds of publics themselves [Trench, 2008]. The participation model also advocates for the active involvement of publics within the process of science (for example, in citizen science efforts), and active consultation with stakeholders for collectively shaping the agenda, direction and pace of technoscientific developments (for example, in upstream engagement activities) [Bauer et al., 2007;Cunningham-Burley, 2006;Wilsdon & Willis, 2004]. ...
... It is important to note here that in principle, the dialogue and participation models might seem like obvious improvements over the deficit model, but in practice, science communicators often rely on a messy combination of models operating in tandem [Brossard & Lewenstein, 2009]. Further, the deficit model seems to be far more difficult to root out completely [Trench, 2008], and there is also some recent interest in revisiting its value in the long term [Metcalfe, 2019]. Further, various other science communication frameworks have been proposed over the years, but most of these have some degree of overlap with the deficit, dialogue and participation models described above [see: Horst, 2008;Brossard & Lewenstein, 2009], and are not entirely unique in their scope or function. ...
Scientific temper, a mainstay in Indian science policies and science communication/education programmes, conceptualises citizens as scientifically conscious and powerful agents that approach societal issues with a rational and critical mind rather than taking refuge in religious, superstitious and pseudoscientific worldviews. Our essay provides a brief history of this term and compares it with existing science communication models to demonstrate how, despite sharing commonalities, it is distinct from models like deficit, dialogue, and participation. We elucidate how scientific temper fosters critical features like a process-oriented approach, reflexivity, democratisation of scientific expertise and being a potential tool for decolonisation. Lastly, we propose scientific temper as an alternate framework for democratising knowledge-making and -sharing, building an engaged deliberative citizenry, and studying science-society relationships overall.
... La noción de un cuerpo científico dialogante, que rechaza el modelo de déficit en la comunicación de la ciencia, se conecta con la investigación sobre los científicos como fuentes expertas en los medios digitales. La evolución de los modelos de comunicación científica hacia la participación destaca la importancia de involucrar tanto a los científicos como al público en la construcción de problemáticas, la agenda científica y la negociación de significados, según lo propuesto por Trench (2008). ...
La presente investigación se planteó como objetivo describir bajo qué características se insertan los científicos como fuentes expertas en los medios de comunicación digitales de Ecuador. Con este propósito, se aplicó un análisis de contenido manual a los contenidos publicados en los medios Primicias, GK, Ecuavisa y El Universo, donde se recurrió a una fuente experta científica, durante los meses de enero a junio de 2023, considerando variables como género, motivo de intervención, tema abordado, h-index en Scopus, entre otros. Los resultados de este estudio descriptivo permitieron identificar algunas características del perfil de los investigadores que intervienen en las noticias, un desbalance entre el género masculino y femenino, y que hablar de los resultados de sus investigaciones no necesariamente es el principal motivo para su visibilidad mediática. Además, se advierte una baja presencia de los científicos como fuentes expertas, lo que bien podría disminuir la calidad de los contenidos periodísticos de los medios digitales ecuatorianos.
... The emergence of internet platforms has significantly assisted the democratisation of environmental discourse. In the present period, the environmental dialogue is influenced not just by established media corporations, but also by individual activists, non-governmental groups, and ordinary persons who actively engage in the narrative (Trench, 2008). The inclusion of a varied array of perspectives in the environmental discourse is greatly augmented by the utilisation of numerous digital platforms, including blogs, podcasts, and social media (Anderson, 2017). ...
The field of media studies and
environmental communication is currently
facing a critical juncture. For those who are
aspiring researchers and professionals, it
offers both exciting opportunities and
difficult challenges. This debate explores
the important areas and topics that are
expected to influence academic and
practical pursuits in the coming years. The
main focus of our discussion is exploring
ethical ways to manage digital
communication channels. This means that
we need to put in a lot of effort to fight
against false information and encourage a
culture where people are able to think
critically and understand media more
effectively according to Sunstein (2017)
and Ward (2016). The discussion highlights
the importance of working together and
looking at challenging environmental
issues from different angles (Castree et al.,
2014). This highlights the importance of
narrowing the gap in access to digital
resources. It is crucial to create a system
where everyone, regardless of their
background or circumstances, can easily
access information (Hilbert, 2016). In
addition, it is important for future
practitioners to focus on developing their
skills in creating captivating stories that are
grounded in trustworthy information.
According to Doyle (2011), this will help
create a society that is well-informed in the
digital age. In the future, there is a growing
push to promote the use of long-term
communication strategies. They would like
to emphasise a story that shows how economic prosperity, fairness in society,
and the well-being of the environment are
interconnected. Wapner and Matthew
(2009) conducted a study. The conclusion
presents an optimistic outlook for the
future, emphasising the importance of
collaborating in an ethical and thorough
way, while also advocating for
sustainability. The text describes a situation
where media studies and environmental
communication work together to build a
future that is filled with understanding,
respect, and progress. The partnership leads
to a conversation that is both enlightening
and meaningful.
... The deficit model is one of the most contentious. Having acquired greater expression in the 1980s and 1990s in various contexts of science education such as, for example, science museums or science journalism, the concept of deficit emphasizes the division between scientific and non-scientific types of knowledge in the development of simplification strategies to communicate difficult technical-scientific concepts to lay people (Trench 2008). This is consistent with the idea that the deficit model highlights an authoritarian view of science over other forms of knowledge (Brossard and Nisbet 2007;Howell et al. 2020). ...
This article builds on the evolving relationship between science and society, focusing on the increasing emphasis on public participation in science decision-making processes. Public participation in science is often regarded as an embodiment of democratic principles that grant citizens the opportunity to engage with and influence scientific and technological developments. However, deficit models of science communication in participatory governance may be turning into democratic deficits. This article critically examines the deficit model of science communication, highlighting its potential democratic deficit. Drawing on empirical evidence from two case studies in a rural, socio-economically underdeveloped region in Portugal, the authors analyse the dynamics between agency and structure in hierarchical decision-making structures and power relations. We recommend policy implications to enhance the democratic quality of participatory science governance processes, based on convergence of initiatives, transparency, and new prospects for science communication.
... This study seeks to advance the discussion of dialogue and participation as primary indicators of communication quality (Bauer et al., 2007;Stylinski et al., 2018;Trench, 2008). Specifically, borrowing from the idea of "strategic science communication as planned behavior," (Besley & Dudo, 2022a), it uses behavior change theory to improve our understanding of several factors that could lead ecologists to prioritize considering community members' perspectives around research decisions at long-term research sites. ...
... Dialogue and participation, in this regard, are meant to represent indicators of high-quality communication. Trench (2008) reflects on this shift while recognizing the challenge of fostering meaningful dialogue with nonscientists alongside the value of involving more societal actors into scientific decision-making. Wellcited histories of research in this area similarly point to increased attention to the value of dialogue and participation in both research and practice (Bauer et al., 2007;Fischhoff, 1995) and dialogue is a theme that continues to be highlighted in more recent discussions (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). ...
... It now seems common to say that the scientific community should engage in more dialogue with people within scientists' broader communities (e.g., Leshner, 2003). It also, however, appears common for people to default into using dialogue as a tactic to convince others without any intention of changing themselves (Goven, 2003;Trench, 2008). As noted, public relations scholars have recognized this challenge in their distinction between asymmetric and symmetric two-way communication (Van Dyke & Lee, 2020). ...
This study uses survey data to explore ecologists’ willingness to prioritize the behavioral goal of considering local community members’ perspectives in the context of research at Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. It finds that believing in the benefits of such listening is a relatively strong statistical predictor of expressing a willingness to prioritize listening. Neither normative beliefs nor agency beliefs were strong correlates of prioritizing listening. Women and younger scientists were more willing to prioritize listening as a goal. The study builds on the “strategic science communication as planned behavior” approach to try to better understand scientists’ communication choices.
... This multidimensionality of science communication should come as no surprise. As observed by Trench (2008), several science communication models, including the one-way kind, continue to coexist with two-way models that place varying emphasis on interactivity. This has been confirmed by the findings of our analysis. ...
The field of science communication is constantly evolving and searching for new ways and tools to improve its practice. Several studies have focused on how people are reached, the existing communication gaps and challenges and how communication can change people’s understanding, perception and use of science. However, a key element, namely, the public’s perception of this matter, has been mostly overlooked in the literature. This chapter presents the results of an in-depth qualitative analysis of the views of 500 European citizens on how to improve science communication. Their participation in the public consultations not only allowed for listening to their concerns and suggestions but also, through inductive analysis, for understanding what they considered to be the top priorities for improving science communication and the presentation of scientific knowledge. An enquiry is also made into whether there were differences between countries and topics and how the suggestions reflected a particular understanding of public engagement with science. The findings are presented as a citizens’ science communication improvement framework with four main dimensions: accessibility, validity, understanding and engagement. This framework not only highlights the citizens’ multidimensional perception of science communication but can also be used by scientists or science communicators to assess the quality of specific messages or initiatives as to how they answer the needs and demands of the public.
... This multidimensionality of science communication should come as no surprise. As observed by Trench (2008), several science communication models, including the one-way kind, continue to coexist with two-way models that place varying emphasis on interactivity. This has been confirmed by the findings of our analysis. ...
... A second blind spot deserving of our attention relates to what public communication of science and technology scholars have called the deficit model Trench (2008). The idea underlying this model is as simple as it is misleading: people adopt sceptical attitudes to science and engage in irrational behaviours because they lack adequate scientific literacy. ...
This chapter establishes and underscores the salience and relevance of studying knowledge claims refused by scientific communities as a way to understand the changing relationship between science, technology and society, with its conflicts and ambivalence. It makes the case that studying refused knowledge requires social scientists to venture beyond the comfort zone of their ‘knowing niche’ to renew their analytical lenses and thus avoid simplistic representations and interpretive blind spots. This chapter thus critically scrutinises the implications arising from the permanence of a series of ready-made normative prejudices and interpretative blind spots regarding the current challenges to science as well as about refused knowledge. Finally, it also outlines a number of potential analytical insights that require further collective effort if they are to be better defined and translated into precise research agendas.
... Consequently, researchers have advocated for more dialogue and engagement of the public in science communication and emphasize the need for other models to complement the deficit model [Bucchi & Trench, 2021;Campos, 2022;Carr, Grand & Sullivan, 2017;National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017]. New models such as the "dialogue model" and "participation model" [Giardullo et al., 2023;Metcalfe, 2019;Trench, 2008] propose different approaches to engage the public more actively in research and science communication. Among these are models of co-creation and co-production focusing on joint knowledge production between citizens and researchers trying to achieve more equal and in-depth public participation [de Koning, Crul & Wever, 2016;Greenhalgh, Jackson, Shaw & Janamian, 2016;Rock, McGuire & Rogers, 2018;Senabre Hidalgo et al., 2021]. ...
Many young people struggle with their mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic compounded these challenges. However, young people are rarely involved in research and communication about causes and coping strategies. We used an online game as a conversation starter and co-created a list of coping strategies with young people to apply the dialogue model of science communication and facilitate social conversation about mental health during COVID-19. The young people found the involvement was valuable as it led to self-reflection, social reflection with peers and an experience of recognition and contribution. We discuss challenges and urge researchers to explore ways for open dialogue and co-creation as strategic and contributing parts of the research process.
