The “deficit model” as an explanation of the public understanding of science has attracted sustained criticism. While acknowledging the limitations of the deficit model, we argue that researchers should not abandon all interest in exploring it. Our results suggest that the deficit model is an important part of a culture of argumentation shared by both scientists and members of the public, and drawn upon as explanations of the public understanding of science. We carried out discourse analysis of a focus group conducted at the height of the UK's Foot and Mouth Disease crisis. The focus of our analysis was a debate about the science behind the spread and control of the virus. The results point to the importance of the deficit model in the public understanding ofthe public understanding of science. The challenge is to look to other ways of describing the relation between science and society, while recognizing that the deficit model serves scientists, the public and others alike as a resource for political discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London: Routledge .
2.
Cm. 5637 (2002) Response to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries by HM Government with the Welsh Assembly Government. London: HMSO .
3.
Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,”Social Studies of Science32: 235–296 .
4.
Cook, G. (2004) Genetically Modified Language. London: Routledge .
5.
Cook, G. and Robbins, P.T. (2002) The Presentation of GM Crop Research to Non-Specialists: A Case Study. Reading: University of Reading .
6.
Cook, G. , Pieri, E. and Robbins, P.T. (2004) “'The Scientists Think and the Public Feels': Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food,”Discourse and Society15(4): 433–449 .
7.
DEFRA (2001) Public Opinion on Foot & Mouth. RS 251034. Final Report, November, 2001. Prepared for the Research Unit COI Communications on behalf of DEFRA. URL: http://www.ukresilience.info/contingencies/pubs/defra_fmd.pdf (accessed 20 September 2005).
8.
DEFRA (2003a) “Foot and Mouth Disease—Cases by County.” URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/newcounties/county.htm (accessed 4 October 2004).
9.
DEFRA (2003b) “Statistics on Foot and Mouth Disease.” URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/cases/statistics/breakdownstats.htm (accessed 4 October 2004).
10.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity .
11.
Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public. Cambridge, MA: Perseus .
12.
Hilgartner, S. (1990) “The Dominant View of Popularization,”Social Studies of Science20: 519–539 .
13.
Hornig Priest, S. (2001) A Grain of Truth: the Media, the Public and Biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield .
14.
Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge .
15.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. London: Routledge .
16.
Locke, S. (1999) “Golem Science and the Public Understanding of Science: From Deficit to Dilemma,”Public Understanding of Science8: 75–92 .
17.
Locke, S. (2002) “The Public Understanding of Science—A Rhetorical Invention,”Science, Technology and Human Values27: 87–111 .
18.
Michael, M. (1996) “Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Misunderstanding of Science,” in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 107–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
19.
Moscovici, S. (1984) “The Phenomenon of Social Representations,” in R. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
20.
Nerlich, B. (2004) “Risk, Blame and Culture: Foot and Mouth Disease and the Debate about Cheap Food,” in M. Lien and B. Nerlich (eds) The Politics of Food, pp. 39–58. Oxford: Berg .
21.
Nerlich, B. and Döring, M. (2005) “Poetic Justice? Rural Policy Clashes with Rural Poetry in the 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK,”Journal of Rural Studies21: 165–180 .
22.
Nerlich, B. , Hamilton, C. and Rowe, V. (2002) “Conceptualising Foot and Mouth Disease: The Socio-cultural Role of Metaphors, Frames and Narratives.” URL: http://www.metaphorik.de/02/nerlich.htm
23.
Petts, J. , Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public, Contract Research Report 329/2001 for the Health and Safety Executive. Norwich: Her Majesty's Stationery Office .
24.
Poortinga, W. , Bickerstaff, K. , Langford, I. , Niewöhner, J. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2004) “The British 2001 Foot and Mouth Crisis: A Comparative Study of Public Risk Perceptions, Trust and Beliefs about Government Policy in Two Communities,”Journal of Risk Research7(1): 73–90 .
25.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE .
26.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1988) “Accomplishing Attitudes: Fact and Evaluation in Racist Discourse,”Text8: 51–68 .
27.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1994) “Analyzing Discourse,” in A. Bryman and R. Burgess (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data, pp. 47–68. London: Routledge .
28.
Potter, J. , Wetherell, M. , Gill, R. and Edwards, D. (1990) “Discourse: Noun, Verb or Social Practice?,”Philosophical Psychology3: 205–217 .
29.
Pratt, A.C. (1996) “Discourses of Rurality: Loose Talk or Social Struggle?,”Journal of Rural Studies12: 69–78 .
30.
Royal Society (2004a) Science in Society Report. London: The Royal Society .
31.
Royal Society (2004b) “Science in Society Programme.” URL: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1988 (accessed 25 February 2005).
32.
Sayer, A. (1991) “Behind the Locality Debate—Deconstructing Geography's Dualisms,”Environment and Planning A23: 283–308 .
33.
Stilgoe, J. , Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. (2005) The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: DEMOS .
34.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,”Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74 .
35.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1988) “Discourse Analysis and the Identification of Interpretative Repertoires,” in C. Antaki (ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods, pp. 168–183. London: SAGE .
36.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
37.
Woods, A. (2004) A Manufactured Plague? The History of Foot and Mouth Disease in Britain, 1839–2001. London: Earthscan .
38.
Wright, N. (2004) “Mapping the Language of Landownership: Discourses of Property, Management and Rurality,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
39.
Wright, N. and Nerlich, B. (in preparation) “Viral Cows and Viral Culture?The Functions of Rumour in the 2001 UK Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease.”
40.
Wynne, B. (1998) “Reply to Radder (Responses & Replies),”Social Studies of Science28: 338–344 .
41.
Yearley, S. (2005) Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. London: SAGE .
