Use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: the case of foot and mouth science

Abstract

The “deficit model” as an explanation of the public understanding of science has attracted sustained criticism. While acknowledging the limitations of the deficit model, we argue that researchers should not abandon all interest in exploring it. Our results suggest that the deficit model is an important part of a culture of argumentation shared by both scientists and members of the public, and drawn upon as explanations of the public understanding of science. We carried out discourse analysis of a focus group conducted at the height of the UK's Foot and Mouth Disease crisis. The focus of our analysis was a debate about the science behind the spread and control of the virus. The results point to the importance of the deficit model in the public understanding ofthe public understanding of science. The challenge is to look to other ways of describing the relation between science and society, while recognizing that the deficit model serves scientists, the public and others alike as a resource for political discourse.

An Array of Deficits: Unpacking NIMBY Discourses in Wind Energy Developers' Conceptualizations of Their Local Opponents

“…Calls for research that focuses on the use of ascriptions of NIMBYism in general have been made for some time (e.g., Burningham 2000;Gibson 2005Wexler 1996, and more recently specifically in relation to RET siting, Bell et al indicate that it is ''important to study the discursive use of 'NIMBY' in wind energy politics '' (2013, 124). Similarly, Wright and Nerlich (2006) conceptualize deficit models as ''culturally available interpretative repertoires'' (333) and argue that ''work is . .…”

Gender, Knowledge, Scientific Expertise, and Attitudes Toward Biotechnology: Technological Salience and the Use of Knowledge to Generate Attitudes

“…This study has suggested that when males award experts responsibility for making important decisions about science in society, the way they use knowledge largely conforms to the deficit model (Allum et al, 2008;Bak, 2001;Wright & Nerlich, 2006): the more they know, the more supportive they become. This seems to typify the kind of male frequently described in the literature on gender and science, one that has much invested in hegemony of scientific institutions, and the one described so eloquently by Hayes:…”

Integrating subjects: Linking surveillance experiences to social patterns using Ethno‐Epistemic Assemblages

“…The outcome of such beliefs was the marginalisation of the public in favour of expert viewpoints. This logic manifests itself in governance and scientific policy, and in debates on techno-science issues such as outbreaks of what is colloquially known as "Mad Cow Disease" (Wright and Nerlich 2006), with the voices of the scientific institutions asserting the "facts" and suppressing dissenting individuals and groups. While this approach could be sufficiently true if techno-science was somehow completely separate from society (as earlier sociologists suggested-see Merton 1973), the reality is that techno-science is deeply entwined in the everyday lives of citizens, and is a matter of public concern and interest.…”