Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches

Abstract

Dialogue has become a buzzword in science communication. Many governmental initiatives involving information transfer use dialogue as a selling point. We have, for example, a dialogue on genetic manipulation, a dialogue on the scientific future of Europe, a dialogue on food safety. Dialogue has almost become a communication target on its own, beside such things as public understanding or awareness of science. Dialogue is, however, just a technique, a method that can be used in any modality of science communication to serve any of its goals. New developments in the growing use of dialogue should therefore be considered as part of science communication as a whole. In this essay we discuss the various operationalizations of dialogue for different science communication modalities and goals, based on different notions of science. Dialogue offers various possibilities for science communication. There is an important difference between dialogue with a functional goal and dialogue with a conceptual goal. This distinction and its implications are based on our recent study on effective biomedical science communication on predictive DNA diagnostics.

Combining citizen science and public engagement: the Open AirLaboratories Programme

“…54 However we found the discourse within OPAL to be more nuanced and, importantly, informed: Many interviewees were aware of discussions within science communication studies surrounding the critique of deficit models, but often struggled to find them particularly relevant to their own work. Instead their views were better reflected by van der Sanden and Meijman 55 , who see dialogue as a method of pursuing deficit reduction aims, and therefore the two should not be thought of as competing aims. This is also echoed by growing discontent noted above within the PUS discipline about whether the deficit/dialogue divide has any practical relevance, 56 though it has to be noted that even there, attempts at reconciliation involve concepts like upstream engagement which are more applicable to new and controversial sciences such as GM crops rather than the more inoffensive conservation and environmental science that OPAL engages in.…”

Enhancing geneticists’ perspectives of the public through community engagement

“…7 The scientific concepts that scientists wish to communicate, however, may not always align with the interests and unique perspectives of the public. Many "education" events tend to emphasize the organizers' interests rather than engaging a broad audience and being responsive to their interests.…”

“…3,[10][11][12][13] The idea of a singular, static public disregards the diversity of current societies and their different experiential influences and attitudes that can change over time. [7][8][9]12 Efforts toward increasing public understanding of science have undergone a recent paradigm shift. Traditional approaches followed a "deficit model" in which suspicions and negative attitudes toward genome technologies were considered to be the product of gaps in factual science knowledge and public awareness.…”

The role of dialogue in social licence to operate in the extractives sector

“…Despite this promise, the unstructured nature of Bohmian dialogue means that it can be difficult to apply in situations where there exists a specific topic or purpose relevant to one or more parties (van der Sanden & Meijman, 2008).…”

“…This trend might make sense in light of the difficulty in deploying the learning model of dialogue, with its provisional and emergent nature, in the resource extraction context (van der Sanden & Meijman, 2008), which is driven by timelines, decisions, and outcomes. Another more insidious explanation may be that companies are viewing stakeholders as posing a risk that needs to be managed, often with insufficient understanding of the social context Williams & Walton, 2013).…”