The Principles of Public Engagement: At the Nexus of Science, Public Policy Influence and Citizen Education

From the Fall 2006 edition of Social Research.

You cannot be a scientist without understanding and accepting the core principles of the Scientific Method – the techniques for developing knowledge based on observable, empirical and measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. Scientific method has an established, essential process involving the development of hypotheses, testing hypotheses, repetition to ensure dependable predictions of future results, and the development of theories to encompass whole domains of inquiry to bind together specific hypotheses. An understanding of the basics of the process – problem description, prediction, control and understanding covariation of events, time-order relationships and elimination of plausible relationships – is absolutely essential before getting started with any specific line of inquiry.

The same is true of engaging the public. Before one can answer the question, “What needs to be done now, and by whom or by what institutions, in order to ensure that good science leads to good public policy that best serves the needs of the American public?,” we need to understand the basic principles guiding the stages of public opinion formation. Before we can answer, “How can we change the current situation so that scientists and scientific findings have more influence?,” we need to accept the principle that the scientific community functions within society, not the other way around. The scientific community disregards the thinking of the public at its own peril.

From climate change to genetically modified organisms, from stem cells and cloning to bioterrorism – these are all scientific issues, but nonscientists will be making big decisions about how they are addressed. All of these issues raise questions and values far beyond the laboratory that the public must evaluate. The question is: What can scientists do to make the most of public deliberation?

Good public policy should come by way of a political process where an engaged and knowledgeable public weighs in on policy, which in turn produces adequate funding for scientific research, high valuation of scientific research in the formulation of government policy and appropriate regulations. It is not possible for the practice of science to be completely unfettered from public opinion, for scientific research must be accountable to contemporary concerns about values and ethics.

Policy makers, the public and the science community have mutual interests in working through the issues together, but at present real engagement is almost entirely lacking. The scientific community is forging ahead, hoping that it can avoid most, if not all, restrictions on its work and, until recently, assuming that its research would be accepted as the definitive word in policy formation. Policy makers are positioning themselves on politics and economics, and many give science short shrift or use it only when it suits their established positions. And the public remains seriously disengaged and largely uninformed.

Without a strong, informed public voice, decisionmakers are left rudderless – or worse, at the behest of special interests. The public has a right to come to judgment on the issues, but it also has an obligation to come to understanding of them.

Scientists speak frequently about the “science literacy” problem. “If only people knew more about science, then that would take care of the problem.” But the gap isn’t simply a “knowledge gap.” The public may feel that, while scientists have facts and statistics, they themselves have knowledge, real-world experience and understanding, and yes even a personal connection to and faith in the unknowable, that gives them a different – but not inferior – perspective.

The science community should take the lead in bridging the gaps. Only real dialogue can achieve the goal of sound public judgment on scientific issues. Scientists should begin to do this by framing issues in ways that acknowledge scientific content and social and political realities. By offering the public choices that show costs and benefits, advantages and drawbacks, scientists can provide information that will help Americans think, learn and make informed choices.

Public Engagement is Not Public Relations

Campaigns aimed at “informing” the public often fail to have their intended impact because they don’t take into account the Seven Stages of Public Opinion, developed by Public Agenda’s founder Daniel Yankelovich. Understanding the stages of public opinion is the first step in developing an effective public engagement process. What follows is a brief overview of the seven stages, presented specifically for the scientific community’s needs.

People are not empty vessels just waiting to be filled up with scientific facts. They possess existing idea frameworks and dispositions that need to be taken into account. And public opinion as a whole, as well as individually, is not static. People’s views about issues develop and change over time – usually starting at disconnected, poorly informed reactions to events to more thoughtful and considered conclusions. The whole of the public tends to move gradually from changeable public opinion to settled public judgment.

In Stage One, the public has “dawning awareness.” People develop a general awareness of an issue as a problem, but no real urgency to deal with it. Americans are presented with a multitude of problems on a daily basis, but only a few rise to the top of their list of priorities. Some issues dwell forever in this realm of low awareness and lower priority.

In Stage Two, the public begins to feel “greater urgency.” At this point, people are not thinking so much about specific solutions, but they do begin to think “we have to do something” about the issue because they see the impact it might have on their lives. It is in the next stage, “reaching for solutions,” that the public begins to look at alternatives for dealing with issues, converting free-floating concern into calls for action. At this still relatively early formative stage, the public will often gravitate to one or more choices presented to them by experts or policymakers. But since people may not have come to fully understand the choices presented to them, Stage Three is a period Dan Yankelovich has characterized as “stunningly false endorsements.” That is, the public expresses support for a proposal but backs down as soon as the costs and trade-offs begin to surface.

This is the stage when “expertism” – where the decision-making process is taken over by the jargon and agenda setting of elites – is also a real problem. The message that the public gets from that kind of “public discussion” is “I am not in this debate, no one is talking my language and no one thinks I’m qualified to be in this discussion” and the public frequently checks out. This is such a common occurrence on science related issues that it shouldn’t be a surprise when scientists seek public support, the public just isn’t there.

“Wishful thinking” is Stage Four. This is where the public’s aversion to facing trade-offs is most pronounced. In part because they still don’t have all the facts about how various aspects of the problem relate to one another and because they haven’t weighed various consequences against one another, the public tends to think they can have things that are mutually exclusive or unrealistic based on available resources or other unchangeable conditions. Confronting the public with necessary trade-offs is essential to moving them into the next stage.

In Stage Five, the public begins “weighing the choices.” It is at this point that the public does “choice work,” weighing the pros and cons of alternatives for dealing with an issue. As people come to understand that easy, cost-free solutions are unlikely to work, and that seemingly simple solutions may have down-sides, the public gives considerably more thought to the issue and proposals for addressing it. Stages Three, Four and Five can be grouped together under the general heading of “working through” – a term encompassing rational thought as well as feelings and ethical concerns. This is where the science community must become more open to give and take with the public and contribute to the “working through” process.

In Stage Six, the public takes a stand intellectually, but it is not until stage seven when people fully integrate their new thinking about an issue into their lives and begin making responsible judgments about the issue morally and emotionally. The intellectual, post-choicework resolution of Stage Six requires people to clarify fuzzy thinking, reconcile inconsistencies, consider relevant facts and new realties, and grasp the full consequences of choices. The emotional resolution of Stage Seven requires people to accommodate themselves to different situations, change their own thinking and behavior, and confront their own ambivalent feelings. The final two stages can be grouped together as the stages where the public comes to resolution about an issue.

On so many public policy issues where science plays a major role, public opinion is still in the early stages of opinion formation. Even on issues where there has been a great deal of debate in the media and public policy circles, such as stem cells and climate change, the public is nowhere near the point of really thinking through the major dimensions and possible solutions to problems, let alone coming to settled public judgment about what should be done.

This presents great challenges and great opportunities for the science community. Public support for science in general is strong. Majorities believe that science and technology improve our health, make our lives better and are important in maintaining U.S. influence in the world. And yet, Americans don’t really know very much about science and technology and have a natural tendency to fear the unknown.

But it is important for the science community to realize that the public engagement process is not a public relations exercise – it involves listening – and it certainly isn’t selling. It’s two way communications. Real public dialogue is not mass marketing. Neither is it a series of large forums (visualize your typical school board meeting or a Congressman’s orchestrated “town hall” meeting) dominated or hijacked by advocates and the most strident voices. Nor is it a series of lectures from pontificating, jargon-spewing elites. Real public engagement involves laying out the major, plausible alternatives for addressing issues, identifying the pros, cons and trade-offs of each and providing substantial opportunities for average citizens to weigh the options and apply their own beliefs and experiences to the issues.

This kind of public engagement requires the dedication of time and resources just to get to the process of “working through.” But once the larger public has understood the trade-offs associated with complex issues, leadership – in this case political and scientific leadership – will have invaluable insights into the public’s most deeply held values and a view toward the policy options that best resonate with them.

What this process of true public engagement requires is a different kind of scientific leadership – one that is committed to breaking down the ambivalence between science and citizens and taking responsibility for a partnership of respect and working hard to build and keep trust with the American people that the scientific community is truly working in the larger public interest.

On a related note, recent Public Agenda research provides yet another indication that that the gap between the science community and the public is widening. In our Reality Check 2006 series of public opinion research on public education, Public Agenda found education “consumers” – students and parents – to be quite indifferent to math and science education and mostly ignorant of the current policy concerns. While parents and students support the idea of more math and science education in general, they don’t see the need for more of it themselves (as students, or parents for their children). In fact, a large portion of students said they would be quite unhappy in careers in science. So, while scientists may look back to the era of the space race when every kid wanted to be a scientist or an astronaut, those times are long gone and perceptions of science have changed. The inspiring vision has not emerged in recent years that would motivate legions of young people to recognize and consider the benefits of a science career.

In conclusion, in order to answer the questions, “How can we [scientists] improve the policy decision-making process on scientific matters?,” the science community must do some real soul searching, as it were. It must encourage those scientists who are willing to step out of the relative safety of the lab and into communities to discuss the tough choices we face on so many science policy matters. Without a better understanding of what information the public needs in order to make fully informed choices, scientists will have to accept that they may well be subject to the decisions made by politicians who claim to speak on the public’s behalf.

Understanding and employing the basic principles of public engagement is the first step in creating the conditions where science and public opinion come together to produce good public policy. Many in the scientific community have begun to recognize that it is their responsibility to bring the public into the discussion of scientific matters. No major scientific policy can take hold or advance in society without public acceptance. It is therefore in the scientific community’s own self-interest to reach out to the public to understand and educate – not with a dissertation but with true dialogue. But the science community needs to ignite this dialogue, and partnering with those institutions that exist to involve, educate and engage the public would be an important first step.