{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02038369304556355, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.574803149606299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences

Despite mounting criticism, the deficit model remains an integral part of science communication research and practice. In this article, I advance three key factors that contribute to the idea of the public deficit in science communication, including the purpose of science communication, how communication processes and outcomes are conceptualized, and how science and scientific knowledge are defined. Affording science absolute epistemic privilege, I argue, is the most compelling factor contributing to the continued use of the deficit model. In addition, I contend that the deficit model plays a necessary, though not sufficient, role in science communication research and practice. Areas for future research are discussed.