The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 400-414

  Simis, Molly J ^a   Madden, Haley ^a   Cacciatore, Michael A ^b   Yeo, Sara K ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

knowledge deficit model; policy; public; science communication; social sciences; STEM

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE;

EID: 84964800736     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662516629749     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. N.AllumE.SibleyP.SturgisP.Stoneman (2014) Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 833–849. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513492485.
2. American Association of Physics Teachers (1999) What is science?American Journal of Physics67(8): 659. DOI: 10.1119/1.19348.
3. G.S.Becker (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4. J.C.BesleyM.C.Nisbet (2013) How scientists view the media, the public, and the political process. Public Understanding of Science22: 644–659.
5. J.C.BesleyA.H.Tanner (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication33(2): 239–263. DOI: 10.1177/1075547010386972.
6. J.C.BesleyS.H.OhM.C.Nisbet (2012) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 971–987. DOI: 10.1177/0963662512459315.
7. A.BlokM.JensenP.Kaltoft (2008) Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science17: 189–209.
8. D.BrossardD.A.ScheufeleE.KimB.V.Lewenstein (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 546–558. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507087304.
9. S.E.BrownellJ.V.PriceL.Steinman (2013) Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education12(1): E6–E10.
10. T.W.BurnsD.J.O’ConnorS.M.Stocklmayer (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12: 183–202.
11. Chemical & Engineering News (2005) Ralph J. Cicerone. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8341cicerone.html
12. R.J.Cicerone (2006) Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus6(3): 3.
13. S.Cole (1983) The heirarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology89(1): 111–139.
14. G.CookE.PieriP.T.Robbins (2004) “The scientists think and the public feels”: Expert perceptions of the discourse of gm food. Discourse & Society15(4): 443–449. DOI: 10.1177/0957926504043708.
15. S.R.Davies (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication29(4): 413–434. DOI: 10.1177/1075547008316222.
16. A.Downs (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150. DOI: 10.1086/257897.
17. N.Feinstein (2011) Salvaging science literacy. Science Education95: 168–185. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20414.
18. M.Friedman (1953) Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19. S.O.FuntowiczJ.R.Ravetz (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25(7): 739–755. DOI: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
20. R.GelyP.T.Spiller (1990) A rational choice theory of Supreme Court statutory decisions with applications to the “State Farm” and “Grove City” cases. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization6(2): 263–300. DOI: 10.2307/764779.
21. P.A.HolkupT.Tripp-ReimerE.M.SaloisC.Weinert (2004) Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a Native American community. Advances in Nursing Science27(3): 162–175.
22. L.R.Iannaccone (1995) Voodoo economics? Reviewing the rational choice approach to religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion34(1): 76–88. DOI: 10.2307/1386524.
23. In praise of soft science (2005) Nature435(7045): 1003.
24. D.Kahneman (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
25. V.Kiernan (2003) Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication25: 3–13. DOI: 10.1177/1075547003255297.
26. M.KurathP.Gisler (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 559–573. DOI: 10.1177/0963662509104723.
27. X.LiangL.Y.-F.SuS.K.YeoD.A.ScheufeleD.BrossardM.A.Xenos. (2014) Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(4): 772–791. DOI: 10.1177/1077699014550092.
28. C.E.Lindblom (1959) The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88.
29. M.LodgeC.S.Taber (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. M.McAuliffR.Grim (2013) Lamar Smith, GOP push politicization of scientific research. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/lamar-smith-science_n_3165754.html
31. L.A.McCauleyM.R.LasarevG.HigginsJ.RothleinJ.MunizC.Ebbert. (2001) Work characteristics and pesticide exposures among migrant agricultural families: A community-based research approach. Environmental Health Perspectives109(5): 533–538.
32. J.D.Miller (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48. DOI: 10.2307/20024852.
33. J.D.Miller (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001.
34. Y.MouC.A.Lin (2014) Communicating food safety via the social media: The role of knowledge and emotions on risk perception and prevention. Science Communication36(5): 593–616. DOI: 10.1177/1075547014549480.
35. L.Moyer-HornerM.M.SmithJ.Belt (2012) Citizen science and observer variability during American pika surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management76(7): 1472–1479. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.373.
36. M.C.NisbetD.A.Scheufele (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96(10): 1767–1778.
37. A.PetersenA.AndersonS.AllanC.Wilkinson (2009) Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 512–530.
38. Pew Research Center (2011a) Opposition to nuclear power rises amid Japanese crisis. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/21/opposition-to-nuclear-power-rises-amid-japanese-crisis/
39. Pew Research Center (2011b) Partisan divide over alternative energy widens. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/10/partisan-divide-over-alternative-energy-widens/
40. Pew Research Center (2014a) Key indicators in media and news. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-key-indicators-in-media-and-news/
41. Pew Research Center (2014b) Section 7: Global warming, environment and energy. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-7-global-warming-environment-and-energy/
42. O.Renn (1992) The social arena concept of risk debates. In: (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 179–196.
43. K.Rogers (2013) High Quality Research Act doesn’t know how science works. Available at: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~policylab/2013/08/29/high-quality-research-act/
44. A.Serrat-CapdevilaA.Browning-AikenK.LanseyT.FinanJ.B.Valdes (2009) Increasing social-ecological resilience by placing science at the decision table: The role of the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support system model. Ecology and Society14(1): 37.
45. M.J.Simis (2013) Scientists’ perceptions of how lay individuals form attitudes toward controversial science issues (Masters of Science). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
46. H.A.Simon (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics69(1): 99–118. DOI: 10.2307/1884852.
47. L.SjöbergB.M.Drottz-Sjöberg (1991) Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis11(4): 607–618. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00650.x.
48. Stony Brook University (2012) School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Education—Graduate. Available at: http://www.somas.stonybrook.edu/education/graduate/
49. K.J.StrandN.CutforthR.StoeckerS.MarulloP.Donohue (2003) Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
50. P.SturgisN.Allum (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
51. C.S.TaberM.Lodge (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
52. The Kavli Foundation (2012) Communicating science: A roundtable discussion. Available at: http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/communicating-science-roundtable-discussion#.VrJAllMrLdQ
53. J.Turney (1998) To know science is to love it? Observations from public understanding of science research. London. Available at: http://www.communicatingastronomy.org/repository/guides/toknowscience.pdf
54. A.TverskyD.Kahneman (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business59(4): S251–S278. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/pdfplus/2352759.pdf
55. L.Van EperenF.M.Marincola (2011) How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine9(1): 199.
56. J.R.WeberC.S.Word (2001) The communication process as evaluative context: What do nonscientists hear when scientists speak?Bioscience51(6): 487–495.
57. T.D.Wilson (2012) Stop bullying the “soft” sciences: The social sciences are just that—sciences. LA Times, July12. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712
58. S.K.YeoM.XenosD.BrossardD.A.Scheufele (2015) Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 172–191. doi: 10.1177/0002716214557782