Science, Values, and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Beyond the Deficit Model

Abstract

The deficit (knowledge transmission) model of science communication is widespread and resistant to change, highlighting the limited influence of science communication research on practice. We argue that scholar-practitioner partnerships are key to operationalizing science communication scholarship. To demonstrate, we present a transformative product of one such partnership: a set of ethics and values competencies to foster effective communication with diverse audiences about scientific research and its implications. The ten competencies, focused on acknowledging values, understanding complexities of decision-making, strategies to deal with uncertainty, and diversifying expertise and authority, provide a guiding framework for re-envisioning science communication professional development.

Expertise and communicating about infectious disease: a case study of uncertainty and rejection of local knowledge in discourse of experts and decision makers

“…Without such reflexivity, experts may consider their conclusions about risk are neutral, unbiased and free from any social and cultural context, with serious negative consequences for participatory communication [Metcalfe, 2019;Turner, 2001]. Scientific research is still firmly embedded in a positivist approach to knowledge [Seethaler et al, 2019], despite decades of research demonstrating the value of other ways of knowing [Douglas, 1986;Freudenburg, 1988;Slovic, 1999;Wynne, 1989]. The continuing default of using the deficit model of science communication corroborates this [Mogendorff, te Molder, Gremmen et al, 2012;Raps, 2016;Seethaler et al, 2019].…”

“…Scientific research is still firmly embedded in a positivist approach to knowledge [Seethaler et al, 2019], despite decades of research demonstrating the value of other ways of knowing [Douglas, 1986;Freudenburg, 1988;Slovic, 1999;Wynne, 1989]. The continuing default of using the deficit model of science communication corroborates this [Mogendorff, te Molder, Gremmen et al, 2012;Raps, 2016;Seethaler et al, 2019]. Appropriate consideration needs to be given to increasing the transparency of assumptions about neutrality in scientific research and the impact of those assumptions on risk communication.…”

“…The opaque nature of the scientific process also contributes to the apparent clash of paradigms around the development and adoption of new technology, including novel vaccines [Seethaler et al, 2019]. Clinical trials are not able to cover every biological, environmental, social and epidemiological variable and no vaccine is 100% protective nor risk free.…”

“…Assuming a one size fits all, top down, binary approach to mitigating risk around disease outbreaks, compliant or noncompliant, does not promote inclusive communication or establishment of trusting relationships [Davis, Stephenson and Flowers, 2011]. Allowances should be made for uncertainty and alternate voices so that approaches to managing infectious diseases, based on unfolding but possibly obscured research will not continue to be plagued with fears of conspiracy and cover-up [Seethaler et al, 2019]. Without this, experts will continue to be ill-prepared for their role in the discourse.…”

Are we Foot and Mouth Disease ready?

“…In the development of the project, it was found that the complex nature of on farm biosecurity surveillance, means they are not responsive to top-down approaches of communication and management [Maru et al, 2017]. A common top-down approach is the deficit model of science communication that sees provision of more information or regulation as sufficient for problem solving [Seethaler et al, 2019]. Instead, the AIS approach allows participants to flip the traditional top-down deficit model approach to disease surveillance.…”