Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online April 26, 2016

The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?

Abstract

Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists’ training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize “the public” and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists’ perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Allum N, Sibley E, Sturgis P, Stoneman P (2014) Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understanding of Science 23(7): 833–849.
American Association of Physics Teachers (1999) What is science? American Journal of Physics 67(8): 659.
Becker GS (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Besley JC, Nisbet MC (2013) How scientists view the media, the public, and the political process. Public Understanding of Science 22: 644–659.
Besley JC, Tanner AH (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication 33(2): 239–263.
Besley JC, Oh SH, Nisbet MC (2012) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science 22(8): 971–987.
Blok A, Jensen M, Kaltoft P (2008) Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science 17: 189–209.
Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–558.
Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L (2013) Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 12(1): E6–E10.
Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science 12: 183–202.
Chemical & Engineering News (2005) Ralph J. Cicerone. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8341cicerone.html
Cicerone RJ (2006) Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus 6(3): 3.
Cole S (1983) The heirarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 89(1): 111–139.
Cook G, Pieri E, Robbins PT (2004) “The scientists think and the public feels”: Expert perceptions of the discourse of gm food. Discourse & Society 15(4): 443–449.
Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication 29(4): 413–434.
Downs A (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65(2): 135–150.
Feinstein N (2011) Salvaging science literacy. Science Education 95: 168–185.
Friedman M (1953) Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–755.
Gely R, Spiller PT (1990) A rational choice theory of Supreme Court statutory decisions with applications to the “State Farm” and “Grove City” cases. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 6(2): 263–300.
Holkup PA, Tripp-Reimer T, Salois EM, Weinert C (2004) Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a Native American community. Advances in Nursing Science 27(3): 162–175.
Iannaccone LR (1995) Voodoo economics? Reviewing the rational choice approach to religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34(1): 76–88.
In praise of soft science (2005) Nature 435(7045): 1003.
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kiernan V (2003) Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication 25: 3–13.
Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 559–573.
Liang X, Su LY-F, Yeo SK, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA, et al. (2014) Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(4): 772–791.
Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.
Lodge M, Taber CS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McAuliff M, Grim R (2013) Lamar Smith, GOP push politicization of scientific research. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/lamar-smith-science_n_3165754.html
McCauley LA, Lasarev MR, Higgins G, Rothlein J, Muniz J, Ebbert C, et al. (2001) Work characteristics and pesticide exposures among migrant agricultural families: A community-based research approach. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(5): 533–538.
Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2): 29–48.
Miller JD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223.
Mou Y, Lin CA (2014) Communicating food safety via the social media: The role of knowledge and emotions on risk perception and prevention. Science Communication 36(5): 593–616.
Moyer-Horner L, Smith MM, Belt J (2012) Citizen science and observer variability during American pika surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(7): 1472–1479.
Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1767–1778.
Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C (2009) Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 512–530.
Pew Research Center (2011a) Opposition to nuclear power rises amid Japanese crisis. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/21/opposition-to-nuclear-power-rises-amid-japanese-crisis/
Pew Research Center (2011b) Partisan divide over alternative energy widens. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/
Pew Research Center (2014a) Key indicators in media and news. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-key-indicators-in-media-and-news/
Pew Research Center (2014b) Section 7: Global warming, environment and energy. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-7-global-warming-environment-and-energy/
Renn O (1992) The social arena concept of risk debates. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 179–196.
Rogers K (2013) High Quality Research Act doesn’t know how science works. Available at: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~policylab/2013/08/29/high-quality-research-act/
Serrat-Capdevila A, Browning-Aiken A, Lansey K, Finan T, Valdes JB (2009) Increasing social-ecological resilience by placing science at the decision table: The role of the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support system model. Ecology and Society 14(1): 37.
Simis MJ (2013) Scientists’ perceptions of how lay individuals form attitudes toward controversial science issues (Masters of Science). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99–118.
Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg BM (1991) Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis 11(4): 607–618.
Stony Brook University (2012) School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Education—Graduate. Available at: http://www.somas.stonybrook.edu/education/graduate/
Strand KJ, Cutforth N, Stoecker R, Marullo S, Donohue P (2003) Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55–74.
Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755–769.
The Kavli Foundation (2012) Communicating science: A roundtable discussion. Available at: http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/communicating-science-roundtable-discussion#.VrJAllMrLdQ
Turney J (1998) To know science is to love it? Observations from public understanding of science research. London. Available at: http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/repository/guides/toknowscience.pdf
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 59(4): S251–S278. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/pdfplus/2352759.pdf
Van Eperen L, Marincola FM (2011) How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine 9(1): 199.
Weber JR, Word CS (2001) The communication process as evaluative context: What do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? Bioscience 51(6): 487–495.
Wilson TD (2012) Stop bullying the “soft” sciences: The social sciences are just that—sciences. LA Times, July 12. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712
Yeo SK, Xenos M, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2015) Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 172–191.

Biographies

Molly J. Simis is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communication and School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research areas includes risk communication in environmental and health crises, particularly those related to water access issues, as well as science communication in new media environments.
Haley Madden is a PhD candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests include health communication, eliminating health disparities, science communication, the public understanding of science, and community-based methodologies.
Michael A. Cacciatore is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Georgia. His research focuses on science and risk communication with an emphasis on media coverage and opinion formation across such topics.
Sara K. Yeo (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her research interests include science communication, public opinion of STEM issues, and information seeking and processing. Her work has been published in journals such as Risk Analysis, Energy Policy, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and Materials Today.