Swallowing Science Through the “Bitter Pill” Metaphor and Deficit Ideology in Science Communication: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

Science communication discourse encodes systemic ideological assumptions about knowledge, authority, and the public that remain largely unexamined in applied linguistics scholarship. This article investigates the discursive and ideological functions of the “bitter pill / sugar-coated pill” metaphor in scientist-authored popular science writing, with particular reference to Narlikar’s reflective essay in The Return of Vaman. The study examines the ideological assumptions about science, scientists, and the public that are encoded through this metaphor, and it’s discursively constructs a deficit model of public understanding of science. The analysis is based on a self-compiled, single-text corpus derived exclusively from The Return of Vaman (2015). The corpus consists of selected essays from the collection, focusing on passages that employ metaphorical representations of science communication. The text was digitized, cleaned, and organized into a structured corpus for systematic analysis. The corpus was analyzed using AntConc 3.5.9, which enabled concordance, keyword, and collocation analysis to identify recurring metaphorical patterns and their ideological implications. Drawing on Wynne’s (1992) critique of the deficit model and Bucchi’s (2008) typology of science–public communication models, the study systematically analyzes how the medicine domain maps onto science communication discourse, reproducing epistemic hierarchy and delegitimizing lay knowledge. The findings demonstrate that the metaphor positions lay audiences as epistemically passive and deficient, thereby naturalizing unequal expert–public relations consistent with the deficit model. At the same time, a counter-discourse is identified: Narlikar’s invocation of the Panchatantra storytelling tradition gestures toward a more participatory and dialogic paradigm aligned with Bucchi’s engagement model. This highlights science communication discourse as an ideologically contested site. The study carries theoretical implications for critical discourse studies and practical implications for more reflexive and inclusive science communication pedagogy and practice.