If you do what you’ve always done...

...you’ll get what you’ve always got.

The famous saying with unknown origins, and attributed to a variety of people, came to mind as I started reflecting on this edition of Big Bang. The diversity of science communication approaches that are used to reach different publics has changed over the years. But has what science communicators do really changed, or are we still doing what we always did? Let’s have a closer look.

Once upon a time in Belgium

Some of the work of Geert Vanpaemel¹ takes us back to the 19th century in Belgium, when conducting science progressively evolved from being considered something done by “amateurs” to being done by “professionals,” mostly professors at one of the four Belgian universities that existed at the time. However, science communication, which was booming, was called popularization or vulgarization, and was mostly done by amateurs. Books, written by teachers from secondary or vocational schools, used “a colloquial style, sometimes even in dialogues,” offering practical amateur advice on topics where scientific progress was happening: farming, meteorology, and industry. The content was collected from what they had read in the press or from locally spread knowledge. While professional scientists specialized in a specific discipline, the amateurs had a broader perspective, with interests in multiple fields. They actively traveled to exchange knowledge internationally. It was them who connected to society, through public debates, exhibitions, and lectures.

More recently and globally², after the Second World War, the idea of progress in everyday life became central, and science communication started to professionalize. It had a new role in promoting science and technology through museums, media reports, and science writers associations. Another big change happened after 1970, with interactive science centers, specialized training at universities, and the creation of a scientific field in science communication. Since 1990, master programs in many European, Asian, and Latin American countries “have come to be recognized as one of the features of a developed science communication infrastructure”.³ Sadly, Belgium is still stuck in the past.

Models of science communication

In addition to the professionalization of science communicators, an academic field dedicated to research on science communication has also developed at universities in many countries. In 2008, Brian Trench⁴ summarized years of discussions about the ways in which researchers (and other communicators) shared science with their audiences. He mapped three families of theoretical models on science communication:

• Deficit: “Science is transmitted by experts to audiences perceived to be deficient in awareness and understanding.” 

• Dialogue: “Science is communicated between scientists and their representatives and other groups, sometimes to find out how science could be more effectively disseminated, sometimes for consultation on specific applications.” 

• Participation: “Communication about science takes place between diverse groups on the basis that all can contribute, and that all have a stake in the outcome of the deliberations and discussions.”

  
  

In the science communication research literature, the deficit model (also called the diffusion model), a linear, one-way communication system, has been sharply criticized for assuming an arrogant superiority of science over other forms of knowledge. Some science communication researchers see dialogue and participation as improvements that replace the deficit model, judged as invalid, with an idealistic hope that complex interactions will be more effective to embed science in society. Reincke, Bredenoord, and Van Mil⁵ discuss the value of the dialogue model, in which “non-scientific forms of knowledge, such as cultural and experiential knowledge, are considered to have equal value as scientific knowledge.” However, dialogue and participation are not very easy to achieve in practice, as they may require more planning, resources, and a willingness to listen. In the meantime, the deficit model has far from disappeared: according to Simis and colleagues,⁶ scientists favor the deficit model because they lack formal training in science communication.

Today, the three models are in co-existence, and as science communicators, we need to carefully consider our audiences to choose the right model, format, and channel to create the message. This edition of Big Bang shines a light on how different models take shape through a variety of formats. Some formats and models have stood the test of time, others explore new creative horizons. More science communication research, in dialogue with science communication professionals and participation from their audiences, can help us determine what we need to do to get what we want.

\ Map of science communication programmes in Europe. Source: PCST

References

1. Geert Vanpaemel, “Science communication strategies of amateurs and professional scientists in nineteenth century Belgium,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS, ed. Michal Kokowski (European Society for the History of Science, 2006).

2. Toss Gascoigne and Bernard Schiele, “Introduction: A global trend, an emerging field, a multiplicity of understandings: Science communication in 39 countries,” in Communicating Science: A Global Perspective, ed. Toss Gascoigne et al. (ANU Press, 2020).

3. Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench, “Global spread of science communication: institutions and practices across continents,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, ed. Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench (Routledge, 2021).

4. Brian Trench, “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models,” in Communicating Science in Social Contexts, ed. Donghon Cheng et al. (Springer, 2008). 

5. Cathelijne M. Reincke et al., “From deficit to dialogue in science communication: the dialogue communication model requires additional roles from scientists,” EMBO Reports 21, no. 9 (2020): e51278.

6. Molly J. Simis et al., “The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?,” Public Understanding of Science 25, no. 4 (2016): 400-414.