Deficit Model, One-Way Communication, and Two-Way Communication

DOI Web Site Open Access
  • UCHIDA Marika
    Science Interpreter Training Program, KOMEX, The University of Tokyo
  • HARA Saku
    The Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 欠如モデル・一方向コミュニケーション・双方向コミュニケーション
  • 欠如モデル・一方向コミュニケーション・双方向コミュニケーション : 科学技術コミュニケーションにおける中核概念の再配置
  • ケツジョ モデル ・ イチホウコウ コミュニケーション ・ ソウホウコウ コミュニケーション : カガク ギジュツ コミュニケーション ニ オケル チュウカク ガイネン ノ サイハイチ
  • Reassembling Key Concepts in Science Communication
  • 科学技術コミュニケーションにおける中核概念の再配置

Search this article

Abstract

<p>　A crisis of trust in science was caused in the UK and in Europe in the late 1990s because of difficulties with BSE and GMOs. This predicament led to changes in the existing policy of promoting activities aiming to enhance the PUS. Instead, the establishment of a two-way communication with the public was mooted. People came to accept the view that the one-way communication model, the standard method for PUS-activities, was integrated with the deficit model. This one-way method of communication thus came to be criticized because of the growing doubt about the validity of the deficit model and because of the increasing belief that two-way communication was desirable. We call this opinion“ the bipolar evaluation of deficit and dialogue” and endeavor to make two points: first, the deficit model and the one-way communication method should be distinguished; and second, the bipolar evaluation of deficit and dialogue makes people misunderstand the functions and value of both one-way and two-way communication techniques and may even mislead science policy. Subsequently, this paper proposes four classification methods to distinguish science communication activities through two dimensions: one representing the presence or absence of the deficit model, and the other representing one-way / two-way communication.</p>

Journal

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top