Comparing the Deficiency Model Approach and the Dialogue Modeling Media Coverage of Emerging Technologies

The proliferation of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), gene editing, nanotechnology, and quantum computing, has intensified scholarly debate over the most effective model for communicating them to the public. This systemic review compared the traditional Deficiency Model (one-way public education and deficit framing) against the Dialogue Modeling approach (two-way public engagement and participatory co-production) in media coverage of emerging technologies over the past decade (2016–2026). A systematic scoping study of 115 records using a thematic analysis retrieved across international and regional databases identified 28 eligible articles after screening, evaluating a decade-long comparison of deficit versus dialogue communication models in science journalism. By integrating Nigerian empirical data, this report addresses local implementation gaps and balances institutional constraints against public engagement goals. The results of the data analysis revealed a persistent reliance on the deficiency model, with 64% of articles employing one-way framing, while dialogue-based approaches are limited to 28% of specialized media. High-risk topics like AI and biotechnology frequently trigger fear-driven narratives, and the low adoption of hybrid models (8%) highlights a slow, contested transition toward participatory communication. These findings suggest a persistent divide between rapid, one-way traditional reporting and nuanced, long-form discussion, with high-risk topics tending to elicit alarmist framing. The study concluded that the decade-long overview revealed a slow, contested pivot toward dialogue, yet the deficiency model remains deeply entrenched in how the media frames high-risk, high-reward technologies. Hence, urgently needed is a true democratic governance of technology requires structural transformation of newsrooms to embed participatory protocols; incentivize collaborative journalism models that co-host public forums alongside technical reporting and restructure editorial guidelines to measure story success by engagement quality rather than mere reach; and integrate dialogue-based communication modules into journalism and STEM curricula.

deficit model, dialogue model, emerging technologies, media framing, public engagement, nanotechnology, biotechnology, inter-coder reliability

1. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., & Allum, E. (2018). The role of public engagement in science communication: A critical overview. Public Understanding of Science, 27(4), 412–428. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bauer, M. W. (2017). The deficit model revisited: Science communication as public education. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brossard, D., & Dearing, J. W. (2014). This is not about getting science right: The public framing of science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 785–795. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Davies, S. R. (2021). Dialogue and participation in science journalism: Moving beyond the lecture. Media and Communication, 9(3), 110–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate to scientist with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13614-13620. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Druckman, J. N., Ellenbogen, K. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Yanovitzky, I. (2024). An agenda for science communication research and practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(27), e2400932122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400932122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists' prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148867. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ho, S. S., Leong, A. D., Looi, J., Chen, L., Pang, N., & Tandoc, E. (2020). Science literacy or value predispositions? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 457–471. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jack, G. U. & Adiga, I. E (2026). A comparative study of practical versus reflective models in training scientists to communicate with the public. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), X(VII), 5929-5934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100700404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jack, G. U. & Isirue, C. R. (2026). A comparative analysis of uncertainty communication in long-term climate projections versus short-term epidemic modeling: A systematic review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), X(VII),11425-11435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100700770 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jack, G. U. & Peter, A. S. (2026). Comparative analysis of misinformation spread models during health and environmental crises in Jalingo Metropolis, Taraba State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), X(VII), 5311-5933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100700358 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jack G. U. & Waksum, J. (2026). Influence of AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic media on scientific and public consensus: A case study of Taraba State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), X(VII), 5008-5015. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100700337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Metag, J. (2020). Hybrid communication models in digital science reporting. Digital Journalism, 8(5), 630–648. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Nerghes, A., Lee, J. S., Groenewegen, P., & Hellsten, I. (2022). Mapping the COVID-19 research landscape: A systematic network and content analysis. Scientometrics, 127(3), 1391–1421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2019). The future of public engagement with science. Science Communication, 41(1), 88–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Schäfer, M. S. (2017). How changing media structures affect science journalism. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Oreskes, N. (2021). Fear, risk, and alarmism in biotechnology and artificial intelligence reporting. Public Media Studies, 12(2), 145–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study