This panel reviews the discussion of models of science communication, particularly the supposed rejection of the Deficit model and the proposal of various alternatives to it, and it aims to explore whether we are going through a linear evolution of models or cyclical trends. On the panel are writers and researchers who have sought to interpret or contribute to the debate of the merits and drawbacks of particular models in various contexts. They have also given attention to defining models of science communication with a view to facilitating betterinformed practice and conceptually clearer research and reflection. Drawing information from published studies, from science communication programmes proposed for various cultural contexts, and from contributions made to recent PCST conferences, the panel will explore: Is the Deficit model as dead as so many commentaries insist? Is the Dialogue model an evolutionary step forward? Can the Deficit and Dialogue models co-exist? Should they? What is the range of possible models beyond the “big two”? Are there national or regional preferences for some models over others? Could we be going through a cycle of reaffirmation of the Deficit model? What factors govern the choices of model? Is fashion one of those factors? What can we learn from other fields of practice and study in seeking to understand better how models of science communication emerge? Can we develop a model of models which helps us understand which ones are used in which contexts?

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Modelling the models of science communication

Brian Trench   Dublin City University, Ireland

Maja Horst   University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Carmelo Polino   Centro REDES. Argentina

Massimiano Bucchi   University of Trento, Italy

This panel reviews the discussion of models of science communication, particularly the supposed rejection of the Deficit model and the proposal of various alternatives to it, and it aims to explore whether we are going through a linear evolution of models or cyclical trends. On the panel are writers and researchers who have sought to interpret or contribute to the debate of the merits and drawbacks of particular models in various contexts. They have also given attention to defining models of science communication with a view to facilitating betterinformed practice and conceptually clearer research and reflection. Drawing information from published studies, from science communication programmes proposed for various cultural contexts, and from contributions made to recent PCST conferences, the panel will explore: Is the Deficit model as dead as so many commentaries insist? Is the Dialogue model an evolutionary step forward? Can the Deficit and Dialogue models co-exist? Should they? What is the range of possible models beyond the “big two”? Are there national or regional preferences for some models over others? Could we be going through a cycle of reaffirmation of the Deficit model? What factors govern the choices of model? Is fashion one of those factors? What can we learn from other fields of practice and study in seeking to understand better how models of science communication emerge? Can we develop a model of models which helps us understand which ones are used in which contexts?

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP