Coexistence of models in practice

The audit along with my analysis of the Climate Champion Program, and to some extent the climate blogs, showed that the three models of science communication can coexist in practice. At the very least, it is difficult to separate the models in practice into three distinct groups. It is very rare for a science communication activity to reflect just the predicted deficit, dialogue or participatory communication characteristics. This appears to be true even when the overt objectives of the organisers of an activity are explicitly focussed on one model. For example, the motivations behind the Climate Champion Program were participatory, but the participants involved actually engaged with one another in ways that were characteristic of all the models, especially deficit and dialogue. The investigation of the 2012 national audit activities actually found that participatory model characteristics are more likely to be linked with deficit model characteristics than with dialogue. This suggests that participatory style communication also requires deficit style communication for it to work or that participatory style communication supports more effective deficit style communication. I argue that both are likely to be true. In a participatory science communication program, it is highly likely that participants will want to receive the latest expert knowledge on a topic of relevance. Likewise, as the analysis of the Climate Champion Program showed, in participatory programs relationships of trust develop between participants meaning that deficit-style communication is likely to be more effective and less likely to be

misinterpreted.

While this concept of coexistence is not new and other scholars have discussed this phenomenon (e.g. Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Bucchi, 2008; Hetland, 2014, Jensen & Holliman, 2015; Trench, 2008), it has not been recognised in the literature as ubiquitously as I found in analysis of practice. A dominant notion in the literature is

rather one of distinct and evolving science communication models (e.g. Höppner, 2009; Palmer & Schibeci, 2012; Stocklmayer, 2013). Instead, my research found that it is likely to be necessary for the models to coexist in practice for that practice to achieve its objectives.

To take this idea of natural coexistence further, I found that even when the overall intent of a science communication activity was to convey information in one direction as per the deficit model, it was highly likely that at least simple dialogue between science communicators and publics was happening. For example, a commonly stated motivation for the engagement activities recorded in the audit was ‘to transfer information’. This was in response to a specific qualitative objective asking respondents what significant issue, need or priority their activity was addressing. However, when looking at their responses which described their activity, it was clear there was also dialogue-style activities happening, for example, “the talks series we hold allow the general public to hear and chat with practicing leaders in Australian science”. The publics attending these talks were not only listening (deficit), they were also conversing with the scientists (dialogue), and this was typical of many of the audit’s activities.

In reflecting about this coalescing of deficit and dialogue-style communication further, it’s probably not surprising. When the ‘great men of science’ gave their big science lectures in the 19th _{Century, it is very probable that they engaged in}

conversations with people before, during and after the event. Moreover, audience members were likely to be attending such lectures in the first place because they were interested in the science and ideas being presented; not because they or the scientists believed they had a deficit of knowledge that needed filling. Likewise, the motivations of modern science communicators may be primarily science literacy based, but it is also likely, especially with interested and possibly ‘already converted’ publics that they are

engaging in at least a simple dialogue in responding to and acknowledging the demands of their publics. This natural coexistence of science communication models in practice appears to have both an instrumental and normative basis.

My analysis of audit activities indicated that when the characteristics of the dialogue model are shown to be there in practice, they are usually alongside deficit and sometimes participatory-style characteristics. My in-depth analysis of blogs as a

common modern dialogue tool also demonstrated that dialogue means of communication coexists with particularly deficit, but also very occasionally

participatory styles. My analysis of the Climate Champion Program demonstrated that the predicted objectives and characteristics of all three models not only coexist in a participatory science communication activity, but also work to enhance the likelihood of achieving the mix of participants’ objectives. Participatory-style activities were found to help develop relationships of trust, which meant scientists and farmers could more effectively share knowledge and acknowledge risks without misunderstandings resulting. My findings show that sharing of knowledge through deficit and dialogue- style activities within this context often led to more productive participation. In such a program, the coexistence of models in practice is not merely an unintentional lucky accident but a necessity for the program to achieve its outcomes. These findings are contingent on one participatory case study, and it would be valuable to examine if other participatory programs function in a similar way. Does participatory science

communication always enhance trust between participants, or are their cases where trust actually decreases?

In the case of the CCP, the coexistence of the models in practice resulted in a core of farmers with better knowledge and tools for managing climate risk, and the confidence to communicate about these to other farmers. The scientists involved in the

program gained a better understanding of the context of their research and obtained the feedback they needed to better shape their research and its products according to the needs of farmers striving to manage their climate risk. These outcomes demonstrate that a participatory science communication program can help solve the problem of managing climate risk for farmers, but to do so participants in the program needed to employ all forms of science communication, encompassing deficit, dialogue and participation.