The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science
Abstract
Theoretical and empirical research in public communication of science has a relatively short history compared with the long-standing practice of communicating science to the public. It was only in 1992, for instance, that a dedicated scholarly journal, Public Understanding of Science, was founded. This chapter seeks to contribute to the theoretical understanding of science communication by, first, outlining the key elements of the traditional conception, still implicitly or explicitly widespread within science communication practice and policy, of public communication of science. I then review some of the studies that have challenged different facets of this conception. Finally, I raise the question of which alternative models can best help us understand the contemporary interactions between scientific knowledge and the general public.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The forensic scientist is therefore always communicating with what could be considered a lay audience who do not share their knowledge, but who importantly do not share the same understanding of their specialist scientific language (Bucchi, 2008;Halliday, 1993;Rice & Giles, 2017).”
From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Bucchi, 2008
In the citing paper
“Unlike many scientists, who primarily write for, and communicate with, other scientists who are working within the same field (Bucchi, 2008), the most common audience for forensic scientist's communications are nonscientists.”
From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Bucchi, 2008
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Luzón, M. J. (2013) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088313493610 · Cited by 261
Davies, S. R., Halpern, M. K., Horst, M., Kirby, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2019) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.18050201 · Cited by 206
Suldovsky, B. (2016) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516629750 · Cited by 174
Schäfer, M. S., Füchslin, T., Metag, J., Kristiansen, S., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662517752886 · Cited by 166
Media Literacy as a Key Strategy toward Improving Public Acceptance of Climate Change Science
Cooper, C. B. (2011) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.8 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Bucchi, M.
- Corresponding author
- Massimiano Bucchi
- ORCID
- Massimiano Bucchi
- Venue
- Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2008-06-03
- Pages
- 71-90
- OpenAlex
- W2889670235
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 10.83
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- science communication, deficit model, public understanding of science, science and the public, science communication policy, science communication practice, public engagement with science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9780203928240-11
- The paper
- Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240-11
