In summary, my research analysing the audit, showed that when all the predicted
objectives and characteristics of science communication models are taken together, they do appear to represent the breadth of motivations and characteristics that are there in a national audit of science engagement practice. However, my analysis also shows that most activities include a mix of the predicted deficit and dialogue models, and occasionally participatory motivations and characteristics. This indicates there are no
the part of the science communicators initiating the engagement activities, as this mix of model characteristics was only deduced when analysing all their audit responses, rather than relying on responses to just one question. However, it is also possible that one style and mode of science communication needs to also incorporate the other to help it work; for example, dialogue techniques of science communication may rely on deficit
techniques, and participatory may rely on both deficit and dialogue techniques.
Bucchi (2008, p. 68) talks about how the funding and policy initiatives in many countries have “shifted their keywords from ‘public awareness of science’ to ‘citizen engagement’; from ‘communication’ to ‘dialogue’; from ‘science and society’ to ‘science in society’”. The demand for more direct public engagement in science has risen even further in the decade since Bucchi made this statement, as manifest in
Australia with national strategies such as Inspiring Australia. However, this rhetoric has not yet been translated into practice with most of the activities recorded in the audit appearing to be motivated by a desire to either transfer information, generate excitement and interest, or promote science, science institutions or science careers. This continues to reflect the 1888 establishment objective of the Australian Association for the Advancement of Science to primarily “promote science in Australia” (Burns, 2014, p. 73). Modern science communication in Australia is likewise focused on promoting science, whether that be a brand of science, a scientific institution or a career in science.
In practice, often those applying the deficit model of science communication are preaching to the converted; to those already interested and engaged in science (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). It would appear that many of the activities recorded in the Australian audit fall into this category. While there is nothing wrong with engagement activities directed to the already converted, there is clearly a gap in reaching those not engaged. Bucchi (2004) talks about the failure of science communication that is science literacy-
driven given that many studies have shown, for example in the biotechnology arena, that increasing communication with the public did not “reduce significantly the likelihood of [the public] being hostile to certain biotechnology application” (p. 270). There is still an assumption by many that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal debates and conflicts (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).
With the increasing focus of the Australian public on controversial science, it is clear that more efforts need to be made to engage various publics through more
deliberative dialogue and participatory activities. This is not to say that deficit activities should be abandoned, nor is it to say that deficit activities are not useful. As already discussed, deficit activities appear to be an important component or even a prerequisite for dialogue and participatory activities. Rather, I am saying that Australia needs to explore and invest in other types of engagement activities if it is to be able to deal genuinely with the contemporary issues it faces. All of the activities recorded in the audit were sponsored and driven by organisations usually involved in or associated with science. Public participation in science, if it is to reach its true democratic potential, should be driven at least in part by various publics and not just by scientific institutions or governments (Bucchi & Neresini, 2008). Interestingly, the audit’s few participatory activities were focused on citizen science or scientists interacting with publics on specific projects. This is in contrast with the literature where participatory science communication is seen to provide the democratic opportunity for publics to participate alongside scientists in deliberating about issues or problems, including the critical review of science and its institutions. Public activism could play a very important role in initiating more participatory science communication. This has not happened in
Australia to any real extent, and it would be interesting to investigate why not, given the rise of publicly controversial science. One possible reason is that participatory science
communication, which is “multi-directional, open-ended and potentially open to conflict” (Bucchi, 2008, p. 70), requires scientists and their institutions to relinquish at least some degree of control and power over the communication process.
Irwin (2014) discusses the need for a ‘third order thinking’ about science engagement that puts science-public relations in the wider context to “open up fresh inter-connections between public, scientific, institutional, political and ethical visions of change in all their heterogeneity, conditionality and disagreement” (Irwin, 2014, p. 169). Similarly, Broks (2006) calls for a new perspective that he labels as the ‘Critical Understanding of Science in Public’, or CUSP. In this perspective, science
communication: happens in many directions; recognises the social, political and cultural contexts in which it occurs; encompasses knowledge (including values and opinions) from both lay and scientific experts; and is concerned with meanings rather than informational content. Both third order thinking and CUSP require large cultural changes in the mindsets of our scientists, science communicators and the institutions they work for. They also require engagement activities that span, and include, the full spectrum and complexity of the deficit, dialogue and participatory science
communication models.
The next chapter looks specifically at an example of dialogue communication about a controversial science issue, climate change. It seeks to explore in more depth how an increasingly common dialogic technique, blogs, engages publics in
controversial science. In particular, how are commenters engaging with each other in blogs and how does their engagement reflect the theorised science communication models.