Facts are not enough for effective science communication
The deficit model (yes, that one again!) is ineffective for communicating science. What's needed are participatory and dialogical approaches. A study in PNAS.
The deficit model is alive and (still?) struggling alongside us. At least according to a recent report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. The deficit model is that approach to science communication where, on one side, stand those who possess knowledge (scientific researchers). On the other hand, there is the public, seen as nothing more than an empty vessel to be filled with information.
The four authors of the paper, An Agenda for Science Communication Research and Practice—James N. Druckman, Kirsten M. Ellenbogen, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Itzhak Yanovitzky —demonstrate the widespread prevalence of this mode of communication. The idea that facts alone are enough to "correct" what people think has several limitations. One, for example, is that this approach erases "the intrinsic uncertainty that accompanies science," an element we saw as crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Speaking of the pandemic, the report recalls a phrase attributed to Anthony Fauci, the well-known immunologist and member of Donald Trump's 2020 task force during his first term. The quote is this:
"What scientists must do is simply stick to the science and the data. It is very frustrating to deal with individuals, institutions, or groups that deny reality or make claims unsupported by facts. One should not be unsettled; just stick to the science."
The aforementioned idea reflects a view of science as neutral with respect to the values that define us as social and cultural beings, as well as a stance closely tied to something resembling the deficit model: that scientific truth is sufficient in and of itself.
In this regard, the PNAS report cites a study that considered 819 different social media experiments aimed at persuading people about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. When evaluating the impact of these actions on public opinion, the outcome was disappointing: only 1% of people changed their views based on the new facts presented in these communications. The authors write, laconically: "although this suggests some impact, the overall effectiveness of many of these approaches remains contested."
What now?
Recent data show that opinions about science are becoming increasingly polarised, at least in the United States. In 2000, 47% of Republicans and 46% of Democrats expressed great trust in the scientific community. By 2022, these numbers had dropped to 28% for Republicans and risen to 53% for Democrats. The management of the pandemic played a role here, as did the broader political climate within society.
Regarding how to avoid repeating the same strategic mistakes associated with the deficit model, the report emphasises a single key point. Communication models based on engagement yield better results than the empty-vessel-to-be-filled approach.
"Participatory models," write Druckman, Ellenbogen, Scheufele, and Yanovitzky, "elevate scientific engagement to a primary goal (rather than altering opinions and behaviours)." What they mean is that engagement is more effective than directly trying to change another person's worldview. Of course, this approach implies that "researchers and practitioners [must] pay greater attention to how the public encounters science."
The issue is far more complex than can be captured in just a few lines. However, even this brief overview makes the fundamental point for us as communicators: it is not enough to have facts to tell, nor is it enough to package them well. What is needed, first and foremost, is to be immersed in the cultural and social processes that shape how people come into contact with science, taking into account cultural, political, and emotional elements. More than ever, there is a need to move toward dialogue rather than monologue.
Further readings:
- An agenda for science communication research and practice: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400932122
- Digital public health interventions at scale: The impact of social media advertising on beliefs and outcomes related to COVID vaccines: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208110120
