Literature Science
Communication 2.0
Lecture 2
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for
science communication? Promising directions and
lingering distractions.
Keywords: role of the media, defi cit model, science communicati on, polarizati on,
directi ons, frames/framing, going broad, elite audiences, ethics, knowledge gaps,
upstream, public dialogue/engagement, deep diving, science opinion leaders
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and
participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of
the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that
science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases
of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed
recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their
organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by
careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that
facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in
knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Over the past few years, there have been signs of a gradual shift in how the scientific community
views public engagement. There is a growing recognition that effective communication requires
initiatives that sponsor dialogue, trust, relationships, and public participation. Yet despite notable
new directions, many communication efforts continue to be based on ad-hoc, intuition-driven
approaches, paying little attention to several decades of interdisciplinary research on what makes for
effective public engagement.
Myths about public communication
A fundamental assumption has been that ignorance is at the root of social conflict over science. As a
solution, science media is used to educate the public about the technical details of the matter in
dispute. In this decades-old “deficit” model, communication is defined as a process of transmission.
The facts are assumed to speak for themselves and to be interpreted by all citizens in similar ways. A
recent meta-analysis shows that science literacy only accounts for a small fraction of the variance in
how lay publics form opinions about controversial areas of science. Far stronger influences on
opinion derive from value dispositions such as ideology, partisanship, and religious identity.
However, to focus on science literacy as both the cause and the solution to failures in public
communication remains a major distraction for science organizations. These initiatives tend to reach
a small audience of already informed science enthusiasts.
,From transmission to dialogue
Serious critiques of the deficit model first gained prominence in the early 1990s as sociologists
studied how particular social groups made sense of scientific expertise and authority. The study of
Wynne (1992) in particular helped set the wheels in motion for new thinking about the public uptake
of scientific advice. Instead of narrowly blaming the conflict on ignorance, Wynne proposed that
their skepticism of scientific advice was strongly filtered by feelings of distrust and alienation,
feelings that were forged by local history, communication mistakes by scientists. Based on his
research, Wynne proposed a set of common mental rules that lay publics are likely to use in
evaluating scientific advice and expertise (i.e. are they open to criticism, do they pay attention to
other available knowledge, etc). In 2000, drawing upon this emerging body of work, a UK House of
Lords report urged science institutions to move beyond just a one-way transmission model of science
communication toward a new focus on deliberative contexts where a variety of stakeholders could
participate in a dialogue and exchange of views about science policy.
Importantly, Wynne and others argue that public consultation should not occur only at the late stage
when a product such as genetically modified food or nanotechnology has been introduced into the
market. Instead, engagement needs to move “upstream” to when science or technology is in its
formative stage, so that a diversity of stakeholders and concerned citizens can have a more
meaningful say in matters of ownership, regulation, uses, applications, benefits, and risks. If the
public is not allowed early and meaningful participation in decision-making, critics argue that these
engagement exercises become just another form of deficit-model public relations and outreach.
Framing and public engagement
An unfortunate limitation to public dialogue initiatives is their small scale and scope. Unless intensive
resources are spent on recruiting a diverse set of participants, the most likely individuals to turn out
are those already opinion intense, well informed, and emotionally committed to an issue.
If a goal of public engagement is to promote mutual understanding between scientists,
policymakers, and the public, then public consultation efforts must focus on framing messages in
ways that activate participation from wider, more diverse and otherwise inattentive publics, while
discovering new media platforms for reaching these nontraditional audiences. As a conceptual
term, “frames” are interpretative storylines that communicate what is at stake in a societal debate
and why the issue matters. For each group, frames help simplify complex issues by lending greater
weight to certain considerations and arguments over others. Framing is an unavoidable reality of
the science communication process. It is a mistake to believe that there can be “unframed”
information. Framing should be used to design communication contexts that promote dialogue,
learning, and social connections and that allow citizens to recognize points of agreement while also
understanding the roots of dissent.
Directions forward
These cases demonstrate the need for a more scientific approach to science communication, i.e.,
one that is less exclusively driven by intuition, personal experience, or traditional ways of “doing
communication” and more by an empirical understanding of how modern societies make sense of
and participate in debates over science and emerging technologies.
,A commitment to early consultation and to a genuine role for participants ’ recommendations can
only come with the realization that sometimes a competent, informed, and engaged public might
reach collective decisions that go against the self-interest of scientists.
As reviewed, public dialogue initiatives have many positive uses but also several limitations. A
commitment to early consultation and to a genuine role for participants ’ recommendations can only
come with the realization that sometimes a competent, informed, and engaged public might reach
collective decisions that go against the self-interest of scientists.
Efforts to use the media and communication campaigns to engage the public on science need
to adapt to the realities of today ’s information environment. Many approaches to science
communication and outreach still rely heavily on traditional channels, such as science
television or newspapers.
Effective communication will necessitate connecting a scientific topic to something the public
already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance.
Some critics argue that it would be unethical to take advantage of strategic communication tools
to make scientific issues more relevant and accessible to a general public, but widening knowledge
gaps suggest that it may be unethical if we did not use all communication tools at our disposal to
connect with hard-to-reach audiences.
Conclusion
Public communication and engagement should not be conceived of as simply a way to “sell” the
public on the importance of science or to persuade the public to view scientific debates as scientists
and their allies do. To apply sophisticated approaches such as framing or deliberative forums to
achieve these ends, falls back into the trap of deficit model thinking and undermines longer term
efforts at building trust, relationships, and participation across segments of the public. Importantly, if
the public feels like they are simply being marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce
existing polarization and perceptual gridlock. Specifically, anytime public engagement is defined,
perceived, and implemented as a top-down persuasion campaign, then public trust is put at risk.
An important paradigm shift is taking place within the scientific community that involves a
movement away from a singular focus on science literacy as both the culprit and the solution to
conflicts over science in society.
Maia, P., Justi, R., & Santos, M. (2021). Aspects About
Science in the Context of Production and
Communication of Knowledge of COVID-19.
Keywords: Nature of Science (NOS), COVID, socio-scienti fi c context, science under
constructi on, functi onal scienti fi c literacy, media literacy, MoSSE v.2
Abstract
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and given the huge volume of information available for the
general population (being part of them fake news), there is a clear need to foster people’s
understanding of the meaning of science, of how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated,
, and used. As one of the main aims of science education is the promotion of students’ scientific
literacy, one of the issues focused on teaching should be aspects of nature of science (NOS) – which
can be introduced from discussions in socio-scientific contexts. In this paper, we analyse the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to identify and discuss aspects of NOS involved in the production
and communication of knowledge about it. We analyse selected scientific publications and reports
from the general media, mainly focused on three broad topics about the production and validation of
knowledge: (i) the characterisation of the virus, and (ii) the treatments and vaccines for COVID-19,
and (iii) the communication of knowledge produced from the characterisation of scientific literature
itself in the pandemic period. The analysis was carried out from a model that presents a broad and
complex view of science, as it addresses several areas of knowledge and specific aspects of each of
them and proposes the generation of one’s view of science from an integration of some of its distinct
areas and/or aspects. The results show the current pandemic is a rich socio-scientific context whose
discussion of social, political, economic, and ethical aspects may support students’ learning of nature
of science, thus fostering scientific literacy.
Introduction
Uncertain COVID times have focused attention to scientific research, but the large amounts of
information raises doubts among people which information should be taken into consideration.
There is therefore a need for the general population to understand science. The lack of scientific
literacy has resulted in citizens relying largely on fake news and other (mis)information to decide
how to act. In this regard, understanding the credibility of the sources, the partiality of the results,
and the status of the information conveyed (that is, to what extent the information constitutes
knowledge that is peer-validated and accepted, as such being considered scientific), among many
other aspects, has the potential to get people involved in a thought on aspects of nature of science
(NOS) integrated into a reality involving contemporary socio-scientific issues. Understanding aspects
of NOS is not sufficient, since this is not the only factor that interferes with citizens’ positions and
actions. However, it can provide more critical and more conscientious thoughts about issues
involving science.
A Model for Understanding Nature of Science
Considering our purpose of systematically analysing aspects of NOS in the context of production and
dissemination of knowledge about the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2, we chose to use the
second version of the Model of Science for Science Education (MoSSE v.2). Like the original model,
the MoSSE v.2 is based on two premises:
1. science is a complex cognitive, epistemic, and social activity that can and has been
characterised based on different areas of knowledge
2. scientifc claims should be based on evidence from different areas of knowledge so that
science teaching may favour the development of an authentic and broader view of science
The MoSSE v.2 was created from the integration of new perspectives to the original model, changing
the scientific disciplinary perspectives initially considered and detailing their characteristic aspects to
enable a better understanding of the processes involved in the construction of scientific knowledge.
Like the previous version, the MoSSE v.2 was devised with the main purpose of supporting teachers
to introduce aspects of NOS in teaching. It presents a broad and complex view of science, as it
addresses several areas of knowledge (such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology,
Communication 2.0
Lecture 2
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for
science communication? Promising directions and
lingering distractions.
Keywords: role of the media, defi cit model, science communicati on, polarizati on,
directi ons, frames/framing, going broad, elite audiences, ethics, knowledge gaps,
upstream, public dialogue/engagement, deep diving, science opinion leaders
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and
participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of
the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that
science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases
of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed
recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their
organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by
careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that
facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in
knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
Over the past few years, there have been signs of a gradual shift in how the scientific community
views public engagement. There is a growing recognition that effective communication requires
initiatives that sponsor dialogue, trust, relationships, and public participation. Yet despite notable
new directions, many communication efforts continue to be based on ad-hoc, intuition-driven
approaches, paying little attention to several decades of interdisciplinary research on what makes for
effective public engagement.
Myths about public communication
A fundamental assumption has been that ignorance is at the root of social conflict over science. As a
solution, science media is used to educate the public about the technical details of the matter in
dispute. In this decades-old “deficit” model, communication is defined as a process of transmission.
The facts are assumed to speak for themselves and to be interpreted by all citizens in similar ways. A
recent meta-analysis shows that science literacy only accounts for a small fraction of the variance in
how lay publics form opinions about controversial areas of science. Far stronger influences on
opinion derive from value dispositions such as ideology, partisanship, and religious identity.
However, to focus on science literacy as both the cause and the solution to failures in public
communication remains a major distraction for science organizations. These initiatives tend to reach
a small audience of already informed science enthusiasts.
,From transmission to dialogue
Serious critiques of the deficit model first gained prominence in the early 1990s as sociologists
studied how particular social groups made sense of scientific expertise and authority. The study of
Wynne (1992) in particular helped set the wheels in motion for new thinking about the public uptake
of scientific advice. Instead of narrowly blaming the conflict on ignorance, Wynne proposed that
their skepticism of scientific advice was strongly filtered by feelings of distrust and alienation,
feelings that were forged by local history, communication mistakes by scientists. Based on his
research, Wynne proposed a set of common mental rules that lay publics are likely to use in
evaluating scientific advice and expertise (i.e. are they open to criticism, do they pay attention to
other available knowledge, etc). In 2000, drawing upon this emerging body of work, a UK House of
Lords report urged science institutions to move beyond just a one-way transmission model of science
communication toward a new focus on deliberative contexts where a variety of stakeholders could
participate in a dialogue and exchange of views about science policy.
Importantly, Wynne and others argue that public consultation should not occur only at the late stage
when a product such as genetically modified food or nanotechnology has been introduced into the
market. Instead, engagement needs to move “upstream” to when science or technology is in its
formative stage, so that a diversity of stakeholders and concerned citizens can have a more
meaningful say in matters of ownership, regulation, uses, applications, benefits, and risks. If the
public is not allowed early and meaningful participation in decision-making, critics argue that these
engagement exercises become just another form of deficit-model public relations and outreach.
Framing and public engagement
An unfortunate limitation to public dialogue initiatives is their small scale and scope. Unless intensive
resources are spent on recruiting a diverse set of participants, the most likely individuals to turn out
are those already opinion intense, well informed, and emotionally committed to an issue.
If a goal of public engagement is to promote mutual understanding between scientists,
policymakers, and the public, then public consultation efforts must focus on framing messages in
ways that activate participation from wider, more diverse and otherwise inattentive publics, while
discovering new media platforms for reaching these nontraditional audiences. As a conceptual
term, “frames” are interpretative storylines that communicate what is at stake in a societal debate
and why the issue matters. For each group, frames help simplify complex issues by lending greater
weight to certain considerations and arguments over others. Framing is an unavoidable reality of
the science communication process. It is a mistake to believe that there can be “unframed”
information. Framing should be used to design communication contexts that promote dialogue,
learning, and social connections and that allow citizens to recognize points of agreement while also
understanding the roots of dissent.
Directions forward
These cases demonstrate the need for a more scientific approach to science communication, i.e.,
one that is less exclusively driven by intuition, personal experience, or traditional ways of “doing
communication” and more by an empirical understanding of how modern societies make sense of
and participate in debates over science and emerging technologies.
,A commitment to early consultation and to a genuine role for participants ’ recommendations can
only come with the realization that sometimes a competent, informed, and engaged public might
reach collective decisions that go against the self-interest of scientists.
As reviewed, public dialogue initiatives have many positive uses but also several limitations. A
commitment to early consultation and to a genuine role for participants ’ recommendations can only
come with the realization that sometimes a competent, informed, and engaged public might reach
collective decisions that go against the self-interest of scientists.
Efforts to use the media and communication campaigns to engage the public on science need
to adapt to the realities of today ’s information environment. Many approaches to science
communication and outreach still rely heavily on traditional channels, such as science
television or newspapers.
Effective communication will necessitate connecting a scientific topic to something the public
already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance.
Some critics argue that it would be unethical to take advantage of strategic communication tools
to make scientific issues more relevant and accessible to a general public, but widening knowledge
gaps suggest that it may be unethical if we did not use all communication tools at our disposal to
connect with hard-to-reach audiences.
Conclusion
Public communication and engagement should not be conceived of as simply a way to “sell” the
public on the importance of science or to persuade the public to view scientific debates as scientists
and their allies do. To apply sophisticated approaches such as framing or deliberative forums to
achieve these ends, falls back into the trap of deficit model thinking and undermines longer term
efforts at building trust, relationships, and participation across segments of the public. Importantly, if
the public feels like they are simply being marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce
existing polarization and perceptual gridlock. Specifically, anytime public engagement is defined,
perceived, and implemented as a top-down persuasion campaign, then public trust is put at risk.
An important paradigm shift is taking place within the scientific community that involves a
movement away from a singular focus on science literacy as both the culprit and the solution to
conflicts over science in society.
Maia, P., Justi, R., & Santos, M. (2021). Aspects About
Science in the Context of Production and
Communication of Knowledge of COVID-19.
Keywords: Nature of Science (NOS), COVID, socio-scienti fi c context, science under
constructi on, functi onal scienti fi c literacy, media literacy, MoSSE v.2
Abstract
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and given the huge volume of information available for the
general population (being part of them fake news), there is a clear need to foster people’s
understanding of the meaning of science, of how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated,
, and used. As one of the main aims of science education is the promotion of students’ scientific
literacy, one of the issues focused on teaching should be aspects of nature of science (NOS) – which
can be introduced from discussions in socio-scientific contexts. In this paper, we analyse the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to identify and discuss aspects of NOS involved in the production
and communication of knowledge about it. We analyse selected scientific publications and reports
from the general media, mainly focused on three broad topics about the production and validation of
knowledge: (i) the characterisation of the virus, and (ii) the treatments and vaccines for COVID-19,
and (iii) the communication of knowledge produced from the characterisation of scientific literature
itself in the pandemic period. The analysis was carried out from a model that presents a broad and
complex view of science, as it addresses several areas of knowledge and specific aspects of each of
them and proposes the generation of one’s view of science from an integration of some of its distinct
areas and/or aspects. The results show the current pandemic is a rich socio-scientific context whose
discussion of social, political, economic, and ethical aspects may support students’ learning of nature
of science, thus fostering scientific literacy.
Introduction
Uncertain COVID times have focused attention to scientific research, but the large amounts of
information raises doubts among people which information should be taken into consideration.
There is therefore a need for the general population to understand science. The lack of scientific
literacy has resulted in citizens relying largely on fake news and other (mis)information to decide
how to act. In this regard, understanding the credibility of the sources, the partiality of the results,
and the status of the information conveyed (that is, to what extent the information constitutes
knowledge that is peer-validated and accepted, as such being considered scientific), among many
other aspects, has the potential to get people involved in a thought on aspects of nature of science
(NOS) integrated into a reality involving contemporary socio-scientific issues. Understanding aspects
of NOS is not sufficient, since this is not the only factor that interferes with citizens’ positions and
actions. However, it can provide more critical and more conscientious thoughts about issues
involving science.
A Model for Understanding Nature of Science
Considering our purpose of systematically analysing aspects of NOS in the context of production and
dissemination of knowledge about the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2, we chose to use the
second version of the Model of Science for Science Education (MoSSE v.2). Like the original model,
the MoSSE v.2 is based on two premises:
1. science is a complex cognitive, epistemic, and social activity that can and has been
characterised based on different areas of knowledge
2. scientifc claims should be based on evidence from different areas of knowledge so that
science teaching may favour the development of an authentic and broader view of science
The MoSSE v.2 was created from the integration of new perspectives to the original model, changing
the scientific disciplinary perspectives initially considered and detailing their characteristic aspects to
enable a better understanding of the processes involved in the construction of scientific knowledge.
Like the previous version, the MoSSE v.2 was devised with the main purpose of supporting teachers
to introduce aspects of NOS in teaching. It presents a broad and complex view of science, as it
addresses several areas of knowledge (such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology,
