Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
Accepted Paper:
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the relevance of the systematic review, an evidence synthesizing and appraising methodology, as an indirect science communication tool. It further analyses how the methodology relates to and combines elements of both the deficit model and dialogue-oriented approaches.
Paper long abstract:
A strong focus on sound scientific data and legitimate expertise are central for the deficit model. Within it scientific evidence is to inform, educate, and even settle controversies. Only certain actors have the legitimacy of undertaking this action: the experts. Yet with newer models of science communication, knowledge transfer done by traditional experts takes a backseat to participatory practices effectively moving science communication away from a one-way endeavor and questioning the understanding of knowledge and experts in the process. This does not necessarily imply a complete rejection of the main features of the deficit model. After all, a two-way communication strategy does include delivering solid scientific evidence and filling at least some knowledge gaps, as well as relying on traditional scientific expertise. Moreover, more recent science communication tools and approaches came to recognize and mix the strengths of both the deficit model and dialogue-oriented approaches.
The systematic review (SR) methodology was not devised as a science communication tool. It was meant to improve the quality of scientific evidence as free of bias as possible. The methodology also includes participatory elements in the upstream engagement of stakeholders, utilizing non-peer reviewed sources, and providing a transparent process, open for further improvement.
This paper explores the relevance of the SR methodology as an indirect science communication tool drawing on its use in a contested scientific field, the genetically modified organisms' impact assessment. Further, it analyses how the methodology relates to and combines elements of both the deficit and dialogue-oriented approaches to science communication.
Enacting responsibility: RRI and the re-ordering of science-society relations in practice
Session 1 Friday 2 September, 2016, -