Rethinking science communication models in practice

Abstract

Scholars have variously described and theorised different models of science communication over the past 20 years. This has paralleled an increasing emphasis by science communicators and policy makers for more deliberative public engagement in science. The problem I address in this thesis is: how well does the practice of science communication, especially when the science is publicly controversial, reflect the theorised models of science communication? This addresses a significant gap in scholarship as to date there has been little comparison of the science communication models against practice. My literature review synthesises the breadth and depth of how scholars have theorised about the three main science communication models (deficit, dialogue and participation) to produce a comprehensive framework of model characteristics. I then compare the framework of theorised characteristics of the three models with (a) 415 science engagement activities recorded in a 2012 Australian audit; (b) oppositional climate science blogs www.skepticalscience.com and www.joannenova.com; and (c) a seven-year case study: the Australian Climate Champion Program, where scientists and farmers jointly addressed the problem of climate risk. The data collected for the practice case studies were compared against the literature-based framework of selected characteristics for the theorised science communication models. Data were investigated through thematic content analysis, discourse analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. I found that for all practice examples, most science engagement activities had objectives and characteristics that reflected a mix of those theorised for deficit, dialogue and sometimes participatory activities. The empirical analysis of practice in this thesis confirmed that the three models do coexist in practice, but also indicated why and how they coexist. This coexistence of models in practice appears to be not merely an unintentional lucky accident but a necessity for science communication activities to achieve their objectives, especially when the science is controversial. The models proposed by scholars do not appear to take into account the extensive nature and mix of objectives for initiating or participating in science communication activities. The importance of developing trusted relationships between participants for achieving the desired outcomes of all the theorised models of science communication was demonstrated by the Climate Champion Program case study. Participants in this program, which investigated climate risk, were much more open with each other, including when acknowledging uncertainties. Scientists changed the science they did, the shape of their research outputs and how they communicated about those outputs as a result of their involvement in the program. Trusted relationships developed through participation appear to make linear communication more viable, a finding which questions how many scholars have perceived the evolutionary nature of science communication models from deficit to more participatory forms of engagement. This research improves understanding of how theorised science communication models might be further shaped to better reflect and even influence practice. I propose the new nexus model for science communication and describe how this can be implemented within the practical contexts of considering the objectives for engagement, who is involved in the engagement activity, and how positive relationships can be fostered amongst those participating.