Despite mounting criticism, the deficit model remains an integral part of science communication research and practice. In this article, I advance three key factors that contribute to the idea of the public deficit in science communication, including the purpose of science communication, how communication processes and outcomes are conceptualized, and how science and scientific knowledge are defined. Affording science absolute epistemic privilege, I argue, is the most compelling factor contributing to the continued use of the deficit model. In addition, I contend that the deficit model plays a necessary, though not sufficient, role in science communication research and practice. Areas for future research are discussed.

Many publics remain divided about the existence and consequences of anthropogenic climate change despite scientific consensus. A popular approach to climate change communication, and science communication more generally, is the information deficit model. The deficit model assumes that gaps between scientists and the public are a result of a lack of information or knowledge. As a remedy for this gap, the deficit model is a one-way communication model where information flows from experts to publics in an effort to change individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. Approaches to climate change communication that reflect the deficit model include websites, social media, mobile applications, news media, documentaries and films, books, and scientific publications and technical reports. The deficit model has been highly criticized for being overly simplistic and inaccurately characterizing the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, particularly for politically polarized issues like climate change. Even so, it continues to be an integral part of climate change communication research and practice. In an effort to address the inadequacies of the deficit model, scholars and practitioners often utilize alternative forms of public engagement, including the contextual model, the public engagement model, and the lay expertise model. Each approach to public engagement carries with it a unique set of opportunities and challenges. Future work in climate change communication should explore when and how to most effectively use the models of public engagement that are available.

In an era where expertise is increasingly critiqued, this study draws from the research on expertise and scientist stereotyping to explore who the public considers to be a scientist in the context of media coverage about climate change and genetically modified organisms. Using survey data from the United States, we find that political ideology and science knowledge affect who the US public believes is a scientist in these domains. Our results suggest important differences in the role of science media attention and science media selection in the publics “scientist” labeling. In addition, we replicate previous work and find that compared to other people who work in science, those with PhDs in Biology and Chemistry are most commonly seen as scientists.

No abstract

Transdisciplinary research is a central commitment in efforts to advance sustainability. Transdisciplinarity requires integrating knowledge from a variety of groups, including scientists, policymakers, and regulators. Success in integrating multiple ways of knowing is influenced by the relative authority that science, as an epistemology, holds within a collaborative effort. This study draws from the literature on epistemic authority and science communication to explore epistemic authority and engagement within a sustainability science collaboration. Our results highlight persistent contradictions in commitments to epistemic diversity and the privileging of science, demonstrating tensions between conceptual commitments to participatory approaches within sustainability science and practices of engagement.