Tradeoffs in deliberative public engagement with science

Abstract

During the last 30 years deliberative democracy and public engagement with science have developed in theory and practice to the extent that areas of consensus have emerged about good deliberative public engagement in theory. This thesis argues that in practice some areas of consensus require tradeoffs. Tradeoffs help practitioners to make decisions in design that they will otherwise have to navigate in process. Other researchers have discussed five tensions in STS public engagement; this thesis adapts three as tradeoffs. The tradeoffs are representative or inclusive participation; public or organisational ownership; and upstream or actionable outcomes. These tradeoffs are analysed through three case studies of deliberative public engagement with science in Australia.

The three case studies used two different methods of deliberative public engagement with science, namely deliberative voting and citizen’s jury methods. All of the case studies were examples of invited participation, reflecting organisational ownership. Public ownership is incompatible with invited participation, given the role of an organising sponsor or group of people who have power in designing deliberations. Criteria for good deliberative public engagement with science can make power imbalances transparent, but organisational norms remain evident in outcomes.

Access to information varies in deliberative public engagement with science. Organisational norms are revealed through what information is chosen as relevant in design phases. What information becomes part of a deliberative process depends on which scientists present and with which expert witnesses are available for participants to engage. In addition, communicative actions of participants during processes can change what information participants use to develop mutual understandings. For example, in the second case study, live results of attitudinal voting were shared on a screen during deliberations. This may have influenced how participants engaged with each other. Deliberations in the third case study were organised around the report of an earlier commission, however personal narratives shared by deliberators became extra sources of information. Though much information is predesigned, communicative actions during deliberations can have impacts.

Considering what information participants bring to deliberations through their perspectives during recruitment is discursive representation. In this thesis, all three case studies were analysed for demographic representativeness. Some scholars have argued discursive representativeness is more valuable for deliberative public engagement with science. A diversity of perspectives and knowledge increases the pool of arguments with which participants can engage to develop mutual understandings. However demographic representativeness is associated with legitimacy and is easier to evaluate than discursive representativeness.

An alternative to considering representativeness in recruitment is inclusion. Full inclusion is rarely possible, given the scale of issues, so inclusion of specific groups is more typical. Engaging with specific groups can also address systemic power imbalances and ensure voices that may otherwise be left out of the public sphere are included. There is no claim to representativeness in deliberations among specific groups. Thus deliberative public engagement with science among specific groups is more valuable if iterated across multiple sites of place and time. These iterations can be linked together in a decentred deliberative democracy strategy.