Deficit Versus Dialogue Models of Science Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Effectiveness

Communication in science is based much on two different models which is the deficit model and the dialogue model but there is a continuous argument on which of the two is better for this contemporary needs. So, what this study did was to compare the two models using a qualitative documentary design. The study gathered data from peer reviewed journal articles, books and conference papers that was published from 2018 onwards. The study was guided by three research questions: characteristics and assumptions that underlie each model, the similarities and differences between the two models and their effectiveness in promoting public understanding, trust and engagement. The literatures used were retrieved from databases that include Google Scholar, Scopus, l and Web of Science before it was subsequently analyzed using a thematic and comparative techniques. The findings of the study showed that deficit model sees the public as people that lacking knowledge and it relies on the one way expert-to-audience communication but the dialogue model sees the public as people who already have relevant knowledge and it promoted two-way exchange of communication between the expert and the audience but the similarity between the two models is that they aims to improve how science reaches the society but the rely on diverging assumptions, methods and measures of success. While the deficit model shows that it is effective for a fast communication of large information delivery, the dialogue model showed that it is effective in building trust and sustaining public participation genuinely. None of the models is more sufficient when used alone because their value depends on the communication objective and the audience involved. The study concluded that the combination of clear information delivery with structures opportunities for dialogue can lead to a more real path for effective science communication in Taraba State and Nigeria and the study recommended that science educators and communicators should adopt a hybrid of the strategies instead of treating the two models as exclusive.