Ignorance of science should not be seen as a deficit to be remedied. The deficit model is an outdated idea that suggests science, being ‘superior’/ ‘more reliable’/ ‘more accurate’ or ‘more important’ than other forms of knowledge, should be instilled into the “empty” minds of non-scientists. It supports that the reason the lay public consciously disregards scientific facts is because they are not fully educated. Science is indeed valuable as it is fixed in our everyday lives. It is inescapably embedded in our culture, our politics and our wellbeing. Engaging the public with science is important, however it should not be treated as “curing a deficit,” but rather as enhancing someone’s existing knowledge with information that will be beneficial to them. Often, people choose to ignore “the facts” simply because the facts themselves may not be useful or applicable to them.
As a first step, I will try to set the context of science communication. (What is its history? Who participates?) Then, I will attempt to explain what ‘ignorance’ and ‘deficit’ means in the field of Science and Technology studies. By presenting the flaws of the deficit model and the reasons people would choose to ignore “the facts,” and illustrating my points with case studies, I will set out to address how the deficit model has been unsuccessful/impractical and how people engage with science.
There are various modes of science communication. Science can be communicated from specialists of one field to specialists of the same field (intraspecialist), from specialist of one field to a specialist of another field (interspecialist) and from specialist to non-specialist, i.e. popularisation of science (Shin and Whitley 1985, pp.31-51). All of these acts of communication serve various purposes. The researcher might seek funding from a higher-status researcher. A scientist might want to popularise his science to promote his company; etc. This essay sets out to tackle the workings popularisation. In all of these interactions however, it is important to address the ‘inside vs. outside’ science—how research or even facts themselves, alter from one medium to another, from the lab bench to a magazine, how the receiver of the communication creates meaning.
Science communication can be traced as far back as Robert Boyle’s demonstrations in the 17th century. He suggested that to establish scientific facts, one needs to communicate the facts to a wider, collective audience—to instil “empirical experience” into peoples’ beliefs. (Shapin and Schaffer, 1985 [2011], pp.25-26) To do this, he not only demonstrated his experiments “live”, but also through literature. He used incredibly detailed engravings (investing great amount of money at the time) to describe his experiments to an even wider audience, spreading the “empirical experience” further and transforming his readers into witnesses. This can also be seen as an example of Bruno Latour’s counter-clockwise model of translating the science and enlisting co-actors to actively participate and wintess the science (Latour 1987, pp.145-177)
The ‘deficit model’ is, in a way, aligned with the ‘diffusionist’ model: the idea that science is produced in an isolated sphere and it then has to be ‘diffused’ or communicated from that point of origin outwards. Contrary to that, there is the “constructionist view” of science production: science is produced and continuously exchanged in the context of the situation. Both Diffusionism and Constructivism are views of science communication. Diffusionism is a one-way process with no interaction between the source and the receiver whereas the constructivists view it as a multi-directional process where the source is transformed by the communication process and vice versa. Then: More of a translation exercise with gatekeepers. Strict boundary from which you hope to disseminate your material. Today: Scientists not only writing for press release but already enmeshed in a broader new media. No linear trajectory of information, but information can be disseminated from numerous sources. Dissemination is amplified by social media whereby it’s shared widely.
Citizen science also feed information into this complex web of communication model.
Stuart Hall: active audiences: encoding/decoding model: When someone produces a documentary, they encode meaning into the composition and the story they convey. The way people receiving that, will try to decode the meaning that is encoded by the producer. Potential results: 1. audience concurs with the producer, 2. audience is opposed and reads it not in the intended way, 3. make sense of the documentary in a way that fits their own understanding.. Conditions that may influence reactions: gender identity, social status, culture etc.
positive feedback loop: the way audiences understand what is said about science can have an impact on what’s happening in the lab. e.g. GMO research… people were very opposed in the early 90s. Scientists said it’s because they didn’t know much about it. They created workshops to educate and found out that opposition to science may come from ignorance. Also applied to how the public reacts to science and thus where science focuses its efforts and money.
Cumbrian sheep farmers: the boundaries of experimenters/witnesses has become so distinct they became impermeable… there was no multi-directional exchange of knowledge and information, leading to the ‘failure of the experiment/science’. instead of establishing facts, you’re creating more contestation and debates. Why does science have to reach a conclusion? it’s okay to remain afloat and stay flexible. Statistical deterministic nature of scientific knowledge was inhibiting to the production of knowledge.