In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit

Abstract

After several years of loud and clear rejection, the idea of a public cognitive deficit insistently reappears in the agenda of Science Communication and Public Understanding of Science studies. This essay addresses two different kinds of reason - practical and epistemic - converging at that point. In the first part, it will be argued that the hypothesis of the lack of knowledge among laypeople and its controversial relationships with their interests and attitudes towards science prevails because it is an intuitive and optimistic way to frame the gap between science and society and, therefore, to cope with its causes and consequences. In the second part, a deeper level of reasons will be examined, in order to show that the persistence of the idea has its roots in the objective epistemic asymmetry between scientists and the public, the scope of which is not always properly judged. To recognize this asymmetry as a previous condition for their interactions may help to surpass the byzantine debate: deficit yes or no and open up original questions for the field, summarized in the closing remarks.

Exploring the intersections: researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the organizational role of science communication

“…The professionals made stronger statements than the researchers about engaging with society for impact and the need to build trust, echoing previous findings that "communication scholars prioritize 'showing that the scientific community cares about society's well-being' higher than scientists" (Yuan et al, 2019, p. 115). This may be due to the professionals' increased awareness of the external communication environment and perceived changes to the public reception of the epistemic authority of science (Cortassa, 2016). Communicators stressed the importance of scientific knowledge in decision-making, framing knowledge as a "service" to stakeholders, including businesses.…”

Translating antimicrobial resistance: a case study of context and consequences of antibiotic-related communication in three northern Thai villages

“…Engagement activities are now understood as a way to broaden the appreciation and impact of research, but they can also involve bidirectional communication with the target groups and users of the research or be an instrumental means for "community mobilisation" and health behaviour change (Lafrenière and Cox, 2013;Kilroy et al, 2007). In practice, health-related public engagement is often instrumental and mirrors the persistent "deficit model" of science communication that was associated with the earlier phases of public education and understanding (Suldovsky, 2016;Meyer, 2016;Cortassa, 2016). While some observers argue that healthrelated public engagement has been undergoing a cultural change in line with changing patient-physician relationships in highincome countries (Ko, 2016), health-related public engagement typically involves health education and awareness raising, behaviour change communication, or "community mobilisation" for health interventions and public health research (Roh et al, 2018;Nyirenda et al, 2018;Lim et al, 2016;Davis et al, 2017).…”

How experts understand the public in vaccination controversies in Chile

“…Sin embargo, si bien la descripción de estos modelos analíticos a través de la gran narrativa de la CPCyT puede evocar una cierta evolución en el tiempo que ha dejado atrás al modelo del déficit, cabe destacar que en la práctica estos modelos coexisten, ya sea complementándose o disputando espacios (Trench, 2008). Así el modelo del déficit cognitivo permanece en la agenda de los estudios del campo, tanto por razones prácticas como epistémicas (Cortassa, 2016).…”