Science,Values,and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Beyond the Deficit Model

Abstract

The deficit (knowledge transmission) model of science communication is widespread and resistant to change, highlighting the limited influence of science communication research on practice. We argue that scholar–practitioner partnerships are key to operationalizing science communication scholarship. To demonstrate, we present a transformative product of one such partnership: a set of ethics and values competencies to foster effective communication with diverse audiences about scientific research and its implications. The 10 competencies, focused on acknowledging values, understanding complexities of decision making, strategies to deal with uncertainty, and diversifying expertise and authority, provide a guiding framework for re-envisioning science communication professional development.

Keywords

communication competencies ethics values decision making uncertainty policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahteensuu

Sandin

(2012). The precautionary principle. In Roeser

Hillerbrand

Sandin

Peterson

(Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 961-978). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

A. D.

Yuan

Abi Ghannam

(2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38, 356-381.

Engleberg

I. N.

Ward

S. M.

Disbrow

L. M.

Katt

J. A.

Myers

S. A.

O’Keefe

(2017). The development of a set of core communication competencies for introductory communication courses. Communication Education, 66(1), 1-18.

Evans

J. H.

(2018). Morals not knowledge. Oakland: University of California Press.

Gere

(2017). Pain, pleasure, and the greater good: From the panopticon to the skinner box and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jasanoff

(2009). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. In Nerlich

Elliott

Larson

(Eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions (pp. 29-48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kahlor

L. A.

Dudo

Liang

M. C.

Lazard

A. J.

AbiGhannam

(2016). Ethics information seeking and sharing among scientists: The case of nanotechnology. Science Communication, 38, 74-98.

Keating

(2018). Losing the Nobel Prize: A story of cosmology, ambition, and the perils of science’s highest honor. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

10.

Keohane

R. O.

Lane

Oppenheimer

(2014). The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13, 343-368.

11.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K.

Seifert

C. M.

Schwarz

Cook

(2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131.

12.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

13.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). The ethics of framing science. In Nerlich

Elliott

Larson

(Eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions (pp. 51-73). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Pearce

Brown

Nerlich

Koteyko

(2015). Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6, 613-626.

15.

Pierce

(2013). A role for social justice in science communication? In Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

Priest

(Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach (pp. 195-206). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

16.

Priest

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(Eds.) (2018). Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

The Public Face of Science Initiative. (2018). Perceptions of science in America. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

18.

Seethaler

S. L.

(2016). Shades of grey in vaccination decision making: Tradeoffs, heuristics, and implications. Science Communication, 38, 261-271.

19.

Simis

M. J.

Madden

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

(2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25, 400-414.

20.

Thompson

(2018). Communicating science-based information about risk: How ethics can help. In Priest

Goodwin

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication (pp. 34-54). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Wynne

(1989). Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31(2), 10-39.