As I wrote last week, deliberative forums and town hall-type meetings are one of the major innovations in science communication and engagement. Whether forums are focused on climate change or nanotechnology, research shows a range of positive outcomes both for lay participants and organizers of these initiatives. Yet as Kirby Goidel and I document in a study published at the journal Political Behavior, somewhat predictably, the individuals most likely to turn out and voice their opinion at a local deliberative forum on a science-related debate are also those individuals who have the most deeply held opinions. In addition, they are also likely to be individuals recruited into participation by interest group appeals at church, work, or other community settings.
This is not to suggest that local forums should be abandoned. Any communication initiative has trade-offs and limitations. Yet it does mean that we need to think more carefully about the structure, format, and recruitment of participants at deliberative forums related to science. We also need to think about what the intended outcomes might be and how different formats might lead to intended goals. There is an ever growing literature on deliberative forums and similar science engagement strategies, but few if any studies have attempted to synthesize this literature with an applied eye to these questions.
The need to carefully think about and invest in localized forums on science-related policy looms larger as the Wall Street Journal reports today that the American Petroleum Institute and allies are mobilizing individuals to turn out to Congressional town hall meetings in 20 states to protest the proposed cap-and-trade climate bill. "We're not about yelling at your congressman," Cathy Landry, API spokeswoman tells WSJ. But, she added, "We are about giving citizens a voice to make changes to the bill so that it doesn't affect energy prices." Sure enough, on the other end of the spectrum, groups such as the League of Conservation Voters are also engaging in similar mobilization efforts.
Congressional constituent meetings are not representative of the types of citizen consultation processes on science that have been used in the past or that should be used. These Congressional meetings are traditionally mechanisms for elected members to sell voters on pending legislation and to bolster their own image, rather than any serious two-way exchange of ideas and perspectives. But this recent climate example does underscore the need to think carefully about the nature of participation and the structure of deliberative meetings on science-related policy.
- Log in to post comments
This tactic was used in my county earlier this decade, to polarize the community and derail discourse and restore the old power structure. The fires they fanned made some community leaders fear for their lives, and did nearly end up in a death - the leader of one of the "property rights" groups tried to hire a hit man to kill his neighbor.
Our local paper did not act as a force for civility.
Exactly. It's like when the liberals aligned with Dixiecrats to hold on to their power. The status quo was willing to kill to preserve business as usual and the liberals were OK with that as long as it didn't affect them personally.
The recent congressional town meetings about the healthcare bill(s) have been horrific! Certainly *not* a productive way to engage with the constituency.
Connecting weather with climate is a tricky thing. Some thoughts... one very interesting result of GCMs would be the projected locations of low and high pressure areas with a higher tropospheric energy (stored there
McCulloch accuses Steig et al. of appropriating his âfindingâ that Steig et al. did not account for autocorrelation when calculating the significance of trends. While the published version of the paper didnât include such a correction, it is obvious that the authors were aware of the need to do so, since in the text of the paper it is stated that this correction was made. The corrected calculations were done using well-known methods, the details of which are available in myriad statistics textbooks and journal articles. There can therefore be no claim on Dr. McCullochâs part of any originality either for the idea of making such a correction, nor for the methods for doing so, all of which were discussed in the original paper. Had Dr. McCulloch been the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper, or had he written directly to Nature at any time prior to the submission of the Corrigendum, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge him and the authors would have been happy to do so. Lest there be any confusion about this, we note that, as discussed in the Corrigendum, the error has no impact on the main conclusions in the paper.