IJLTEMAS International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS) IJLTEMAS 2278-2540 IJLTEMAS 206 10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150800012 Growth Deficit Versus Dialogue Models of Science Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Effectiveness G. U. Jack Science Education Department, Taraba State University, Jalingo, Nigeria Nigeria Marwan Musa Sulaiman, Science Education Department, Taraba State University, Jalingo, Nigeria Kenya 15 8 190 198 15 08 2026 20 08 2026 02 09 2026 science communication deficit model dialogue model public engagement public trust public understanding of science Abstract

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.

 References Amaral, F. C. (2024). Communicating complex science to diverse audiences: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Science Education and Communication, 18(1), 22–38. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478 Claessens, M. (2023). Evaluating effectiveness in science communication: Beyond information transfer. Science Communication, 45(2), 145–163. Davies, P. R., Johnson, M. E., & Williams, S. K. (2023). Interactive science engagement and its impact on public participation in scientific discussions. Science Communication, 45(3), 287–305. Entradas, M., Bauer, M. W., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., Besley, J. C., Massarani, L., Russo, P., & Li, Y. Y. (2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0235191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191 Fahnrich, B., Keller, C., & Muller, T. (2022). Citizen participation and dialogue in contemporary science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 21(4), A05. Fritz, L., Baum, C. M., Low, S., & Sovacool, B. K. (2024). Public engagement for inclusive and sustainable governance of climate interventions. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 4168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48510-y Grant, W. J. (2023). The knowledge deficit model and science communication. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1396 Houtman, D., Vijlbrief, B., & Riedijk, S. (2021). Experts in science communication: A shift from neutral encyclopedia to equal participant in dialogue. EMBO Reports, 22(8), e52988. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202152988 Intemann, K. (2023). Trust, transparency, and public engagement in science communication. Perspectives on Science, 31(4), 501–520. Kennedy, J. A., Smith, R. T., & Brown, L. M. (2021). Building public trust through dialogue-based science communication: Evidence from community engagement programmes. Public Understanding of Science, 30(5), 612–628. Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022 Onstad, P., & van der Flier-Keller, E. (2025). The persistence of deficit-model thinking in institutional science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 34(1), 45–61. Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & van Mil, M. H. W. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication: The dialogue communication model requires additional roles from scientists. EMBO Reports, 21(9), e51278. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278 Taddicken, M., Reif, A., & Hoppe, I. (2024). Public perceptions of quality science communication in digital environments. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1384403. Volk, S., & Schäfer, M. S. (2023). Audience expectations and perceptions of effective science communication: A cross-national study. Public Understanding of Science, 32(7), 845–861.