Mediating Science and Society in the EU and UK: From Information-Transmission to Deliberative Democracy?

Abstract

In this paper we critically review recent developments in policies, practices and philosophies pertaining to the mediation between science and the public within the EU and the UK, focusing in particular on the current paradigm of Public Understanding of Science and Technology (PEST) which seeks to depart from the science information-transmission associated with previous paradigms, and enact a deliberative democracy model. We first outline the features of the current crisis in democracy and discuss deliberative democracy as a response to this crisis. We then map out and critically review the broad outlines of recent policy developments in public-science mediation in the EU and UK contexts, focusing on the shift towards the deliberative-democratic model. We conclude with some critical thoughts on the complex interrelationships between democracy, equality, science and informal pedagogies in public-science mediations. We argue that science and democracy operate within distinct value-spheres that are not necessarily consonant with each other. We also problematize the now common dismissal of informationtransmission of science as inimical to democratic engagement, and argue for a reassessment of the role and importance of informal science learning for the ''lay'' public, provided within the framework of a deliberative democracy that is not reducible to consensus building or the mere expression of opinions rooted in social and cultural givens. This, we argue, can be delivered by a model of PEST that is creative and experimental, with both educational and democratic functions.

Talking with the Scientists: Promoting Scientific Citizenship at School through Participatory and Deliberative Approach

“…Thus, we have passed from complaints of the "public's skills deficit", to recriminations about "scientists' communication deficit". What is clearest now, however, is the "deficit of public trust in science and science policy" (Tlili & Dawson, 2010).…”

Four Models of Science Journalism

“…Additional searches were performed in Google Scholar, in the online databases of key journals (e.g., Journalism, Journalism Studies, Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science, Health Communication) and via citation, footnote, and author searches . The searches retrieved 17 relevant articles (Bubela, 2006;Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010;Clarke, 2003;d'Andrea and Declich, 2005;Davies, 2008;Gerhards and Schäfer, 2009;Kahlor and Rosentahl, 2009;Kerr et al, 2007;Kouper, 2010;Leach et al, 2009;Logan, 2001;Piolli and Conceição da Costa, 2008;Schweizer et al, 2009;Secko, 2007;Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Tlili and Dawson, 2010).…”

“…Various existing models of science communication can broadly be grouped into two main categories: ''traditional'' models that view science as the legitimizing form of knowledge and aim at transmitting FOUR MODELS OF SCIENCE JOURNALISM scientific knowledge to audiences, and more contemporary ''non-traditional'' models that value knowledge outside of science and aim at presenting science information tied to particular contexts (Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010;Gerhards and Schäfer, 2009;Logan, 2001;Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Tlili and Dawson, 2010;Weigold, 2001). Dominant among ''traditional'' models of science communication have been ''deficit'' models concentrated on filling perceived audience knowledge gaps on a given subject (Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010), or those focused on increasing scientific literacy and public understanding of science (Davies, 2008;Gerhards and Schäfer, 2009;Logan, 2001;Schäfer, 2011).…”

“…The science literacy model's goal is to ''translate'' scientific information for publics to give citizens the information needed to make decisions in their daily lives, and gain popular support for science ( Figure 1A). It is a pedagogicallyoriented model that focuses on raising science literacy, or the level of understanding publics have about science (Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010;Davies, 2008;Gerhards and Schäfer, 2009;Tlili and Dawson, 2010). The model treats science as fixed and certain (Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010), in that the scientific method and process justify the knowledge presented (Leach et al, 2009;Nelkin, 1995).…”

‘Younger People Have Like More of an Imagination, No Offence’: Participant Perspectives on Public Engagement

“…Aspects of this work, as well as the recognition that numerous definitions of public engagement are in operation despite or perhaps due to its broad uptake as a concept (Tlili and Dawson, 2010;Trench, 2008), has led to criticism that some organisations may be driven by a public relations and/or acceptance strategy. Such approaches ascribe additional responsibilities to publics, responsibilities that are deemed acceptable by experts (Corbyn, 2008;Kerr, 2003;Powell and Colin, 2009).…”