Dissemination vs. dialogue: an analysis of public engagement in science online

Abstract

In 1985 the Bodmer Report was released, which discussed the need for scientists to more effectively communicate their research to the public. The report opined that there was an information deficit among the public, and were this deficit to be remedied, then there would be a greater interest in science among the public. For some time, this model of science communication was the model of choice. In 2000, the Science and Society Report was released by the House of Lords. This report denounced the Bodmer Report. It stated that its core assumption was false, that an increased public knowledge could not be certain to increase public interest. This new report called for engagement with the public and the creation of a dialogue. It suggested that the public should be involved in all aspects of scientific discussion, even in the discussion as to the direction science should take. Since the Science in Society report, a multitude of papers have been published discussing this need for engagement. This opinion calls the Bodmer Report’s approach condescending and unnecessary. While benefits of having two-way dialogues are often discussed, there has been criticism of this movement, pointing out there is a lack of agreed topologies of science engagement, and while most espouse the need for engagement, fewer discuss the defined direction it should take. There have also been suggestions that the public desire differing levels, or “modes” of engagement depending on the platform, and that older models of science communication are sometimes preferred. Through a thematic analysis of popular “YouTube” videos and a discussion analysis of comment threads on various popular websites, it is shown that, even in this relatively new media platform, people still gravitate towards a one-way mode of engagement