In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences

Suldovsky, Brianne

doi:10.1177/0963662516629750

Cited by 107 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…). This communication model is most effective when the receiving audience views the institution of science as the authority on a subject (Suldovsky ), as opposed to another institution such as the commercial fishing industry. Within this model, scientists disregard the formed beliefs and knowledge (e.g., experiential knowledge) held by their audience and assume that individuals would change their opinions or their behavior if they had access to new information.…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This persistent use may be driven by researchers’ underestimation of their audience's knowledge of a subject (Simis et al. ) or the overestimation of their audience's acceptance of science as the leading authority on the subject at hand (Suldovsky ).…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Lupia ; Druckman ; NAS ). Expertise is evaluated by the stakeholder based on their belief that the person is an authority on the subject (Suldovsky ) and the perceived honesty and transparency of the communicator (Renn and Levine ; NAS ). For audiences who trust in science and possess no prior knowledge of the subject, authority of the researcher may be established by citing formal training or experience.…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Communicating scientific results to non-expert audiences involves a transfer of knowledge that often uses the deficit model, a unidirectional process where one party, the expert, provides knowledge to a second party, the non-expert (Bucchi 2008;Suldovsky et al 2017). This communication model is most effective when the receiving audience views the institution of science as the authority on a subject (Suldovsky 2016), as opposed to another institution such as the commercial fishing industry. Within this model, scientists disregard the formed beliefs and knowledge (e.g., experiential knowledge) held by their audience and assume that individuals would change their opinions or their behavior if they had access to new information.…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the rejection of the deficit model by the field of Scientific Communication, individuals within the scientific community still fall back on the deficit model when they are presenting information (Simis et al 2016). This persistent use may be driven by researchers' underestimation of their audience's knowledge of a subject (Simis et al 2016) or the overestimation of their audience's acceptance of science as the leading authority on the subject at hand (Suldovsky 2016).…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Communication, Relationships, and Relatability Influence Stakeholder Perceptions of Credible Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a time when society appears mistrustful of science, it is critical to understand how scientific credibility is evaluated. Scientists often view the peer review process as establishing the credibility of their science, operating under the assumption that sound design and rigorous analysis stand alone. However, scientific knowledge is sometimes rejected by the very stakeholder groups that it is intended to serve. To understand how fisheries stakeholders assess scientific credibility, marine resource stakeholders from Maine were asked to discuss perceptions of credible science. Text analysis of six small group conversations revealed that stakeholders evaluate credibility based on communication style, relationships, and relatability. These attributes are self‐reinforcing and are influenced by transparency. We present examples of how efforts to promote transparency and trust can be incorporated into scientists’ stakeholder engagement strategies and propose that researchers consider these commitments within their respective fields before they design and implement scientific projects, so they may be assigned greater credibility outside of the scientific community.

show abstract

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Communication, Relationships, and Relatability Influence Stakeholder Perceptions of Credible Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model

Marks

2016

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetics is relevant to many aspects of our lives. According to the deficit model of public understanding, any misgivings that people have about genetics and its applications are caused by a lack of understanding. Consequently, education in genetics is expected to lead to improved literacy in, and therefore support for, this area. However, studies show that education does not automatically lead to increased public support and that increased knowledge of controversial research may lead to decreased support for it. Understanding is thus a complex and dynamic process which depends on people's prior knowledge and on their social and cultural locations. Members of the public should not be seen as deficient in understanding. Rather, they have sophisticated understandings which should be acknowledged. Public support for genetics cannot be improved simply through more or better education; alternatives such as public engagement in science or institutional changes promoting trustworthiness may be more useful. Key Concepts According to the deficit model, lack of public understanding of genetics leads to an inability to fully participate in social life and potentially lack of support for new technologies. This can be remedied by education. According to critical approaches to public understanding, understanding is a complex process that involves social and cultural factors. Public understanding of genetics is more sophisticated than the deficit model assumes. The idea of lay expertise suggests that people who are not certified scientists may nonetheless have useful and relevant, often experience‐based, knowledge that helps them make sense of science and genetics. Public engagement, where people with different kinds of knowledge and opinions are consulted instead of merely educated, may help improve science–society relations. The deficit model is a sticky concept: it remains popular in some areas of science, policy and science communication despite its shortcomings.

show abstract

Fisheries Volume 44 Number 4 April 2019

2019

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences

Cited by 107 publications

References 56 publications

Communication, Relationships, and Relatability Influence Stakeholder Perceptions of Credible Science

Communication, Relationships, and Relatability Influence Stakeholder Perceptions of Credible Science

Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model

Fisheries Volume 44 Number 4 April 2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About