Edited by Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 12, 2014 (received for review December 11, 2013)
This paper examines some of the science communication challenges involved when designing and conducting public deliberation processes on issues of national importance. We take as our illustrative case study a recent research project investigating public values and attitudes toward future energy system change for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and different manifestations of uncertainty. With reference to the energy system project, we discuss ways of meeting a series of science communication challenges arising when engaging the public with national topics, including the need to articulate systems thinking and problem scale, to provide balanced information and policy framings in ways that open up spaces for reflection and deliberation, and the need for varied methods of facilitation and data synthesis that permit access to participants’ broader values. Although resource intensive, national-level deliberation is possible and can produce useful insights both for participants and for science policy.
Author contributions: N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. designed research; N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. performed research; C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. analyzed data; and N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “The Science of Science Communication II,” held September 23–25, 2013, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The complete program and video recordings of most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/science-communication-II.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. B.F. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
Edited by Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 12, 2014 (received for review December 11, 2013)
This paper examines some of the science communication challenges involved when designing and conducting public deliberation processes on issues of national importance. We take as our illustrative case study a recent research project investigating public values and attitudes toward future energy system change for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and different manifestations of uncertainty. With reference to the energy system project, we discuss ways of meeting a series of science communication challenges arising when engaging the public with national topics, including the need to articulate systems thinking and problem scale, to provide balanced information and policy framings in ways that open up spaces for reflection and deliberation, and the need for varied methods of facilitation and data synthesis that permit access to participants’ broader values. Although resource intensive, national-level deliberation is possible and can produce useful insights both for participants and for science policy.
Author contributions: N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. designed research; N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. performed research; C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. analyzed data; and N.P., C.D., C.B., K.P., and A.S. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “The Science of Science Communication II,” held September 23–25, 2013, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The complete program and video recordings of most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/science-communication-II.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. B.F. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
