The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Rhetorical Analysis ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Contextual Model ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Rhetoric ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Social Scientific

In the public understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analysing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it. In its analytical role, rhetoric reveals two dominant models of public understanding: the deficit model and the contextual model. In the deficit model, rhetoric acts in the minor role of creating public understanding by accommodating the facts and methods of science to public needs and limitations. In the contextual model, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis play major roles. Rhetorical analysis provides an independent source of evidence to secure social scientific claims; in addition, it supplies the grounds for a rhetoric of reconstruction, one that reconstitutes the fact and facts of science in the public interest.

Accuracy, Authenticity, Fidelity: Aesthetic Realism, the “Deficit Model,” and the Public Understanding of Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Vidal
Keyword(s):  
Policy Design ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Historical Film ◽  
Cinematic Adaptation ◽  
Aesthetic Realism ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Aesthetic Criterion

Argument“Deficit model” designates an outlook on the public understanding and communication of science that emphasizes scientific illiteracy and the need to educate the public. Though criticized, it is still widespread, especially among scientists. Its persistence is due not only to factors ranging from scientists’ training to policy design, but also to the continuance of realism as an aesthetic criterion. This article examines the link between realism and the deficit model through discussions of neurology and psychiatry in fiction film, as well as through debates about historical movies and the cinematic adaptation of literature. It shows that different values and criteria tend to dominate the realist stance in different domains:accuracyfor movies concerning neurology and psychiatry,authenticityfor the historical film, andfidelityfor adaptations of literature. Finally, contrary to the deficit model, it argues that the cinema is better characterized by a surplus of meaning than by informational shortcomings.

Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Locke
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Flip Flop ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

“Golem science” is Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's humanized image of science, filled with irresolution, that they wish to substitute for the “god-like” image of definitive knowledge characteristic of public presentations of science. This god-like image creates unrealistic expectations that fuel “anti-scientific” reactions when unmet. This paper argues that the “flip-flop” view set forth by Collins and Pinch is a deficit model that positions the public as sociologically incompetent. It reflects the dilemma of professional social scientists who deconstruct science whilst appealing to the authority of science. This dilemma is an outcome of a deeper tension within science between the universal status of knowledge claims and the particular, human conditions of knowledge production. Drawing on discursive (or rhetorical) psychology, I show that this tension plays out in the rhetorical organization of scientific discourse in the form of a characteristic contrast between empiricist and contingent repertoires. A similar tension is discernible in everyday, mundane reasoning, which suggests that a golem image of science is already present in commonsense understanding alongside the “god-like” image. Thus, the public understanding of science is dilemmatically constituted, providing the conditions of argumentation with science seen in “antiscience”—itself a “folk devil” and rhetorical label. The analysis in this paper is illustrated using the example of creationism, which arises from an argumentative engagement with science that draws on the resources provided by the dilemma of science in conjunction with other resources drawn from Christianity. There is no simple “flip-flop” here. Further research into rhetorical reasoning in public understanding is called for on the grounds that greater appreciation of this is needed alongside golem science to improve relations between scientists and the public.

scholarly journals Introduction: From “The Popularization of Science through Film” to “The Public Understanding of Science”

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Vidal
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Popularization Of Science ◽  
History Of ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

Science in film, and usual equivalents such asscience on filmorscience on screen, refer to the cinematographic representation, staging, and enactment of actors, information, and processes involved in any aspect or dimension of science and its history. Of course, boundaries are blurry, and films shot as research tools or documentation also display science on screen. Nonetheless, they generally count asscientific film, andscience inandon filmorscreentend to designate productions whose purpose is entertainment and education. Moreover, these two purposes are often combined, and inherently concern empirical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated withpopularization,science communication, and thepublic understanding of science. It is in these areas that the notion of thedeficit modelemerged to designate a point of view and a mode of understanding, as well as a set of practical and theoretical problems about the relationship between science and the public.

Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alsop
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Change Model ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Conceptual Change Model

While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document