1. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke “P UBLIC E NGAGEMENT M ODELS AND THE P OSSIBILITY OF P RACTICABLE D EMOCRACY.” Pat J. Gehrke Speech Communication Program The University of South Carolina PatGehrke@GMail.com 803.777.2069 NCSU-NIRT: Intuitive Toxicology

2. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” P UBLIC E NGAGEMENT M ODELS AND THE P OSSIBILITY OF P RACTICABLE D EMOCRACY The Task: To build a series of engagement events on nanotechnology both online and in three or four United States cities to collect data on participants’ perceptions of nanotechnologies’ risks and their methods of collectively forming those perceptions. The Problem: Existing engagement models seem by fundamental design and philosophy to be ill-suited to this task. An Alternative Foundation: A proposed shift from idealist democracy to practicable democracy as a philosophy and approach to engagement. Practicable Democracy Engagement: The contours and guidelines for building and conducting practicable democracy events. Practicable Democracy and Data: Concerns and advantages for practicable democracy events to provide data on public deliberation and perceptions.

3. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Origins and Foundations of Common Civic Engagement Models Developed as Part of the “Deliberative Democracy” Movement: Activist: A social movement to enhance democracy. Inclusive: Seeks broad participation of the whole of the citizenry. Transformative: Strives to change how political discourse and decisions occur. Grounded in Idealist Political Philosophies of neo-Kantians like Rawls & Habermas: Speculative: Posits the ideal world of politics and discourse. Normative: Upholds that ideal as a standard to strive to achieve. Theory-Driven: The ideal political state is immune from data. Qualities of the Ideal Political Conditions in Deliberative Democracy: Rational: Decisions are made by reasoned and evidenced discussion. Fair: Everyone has equal voice and equal power. Builds Upon Commonalities: Depends upon baseline value agreements. Appeals to Concerns about Elite and Technocratic Governance: Empowers: Can involve “lay” citizens in highly technical matters. Offsets Special Interests: Checks drives of industries with public feedback. De-Mystifies Technologies: Can make even nanotech accessible.

4. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Overview of Common Engagement Models Citizen Panels (Juries) Representative Sampling of Individuals Consensus Conferences Diverse Sampling National Issues Forums Few or No Limits in Sampling Deliberative Polling Representative Sampling of Individuals

5. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Overview of Common Engagement Models Citizen Panels (Juries) Representative Sampling of Individuals Presentation by Specialists / Experts Often Q&A from Panelists/Jurors Consensus Conferences Diverse Sampling Expert Presentations with Q&A National Issues Forums Few or No Limits in Sampling Carefully Prepared Briefing Booklets Deliberative Polling Representative Sampling of Individuals Attempts Balanced Information Q&A with Experts or Politicians

6. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Overview of Common Engagement Models Citizen Panels (Juries) Representative Sampling of Individuals Presentation by Specialists / Experts Often Q&A from Panelists/Jurors Deliberative Process Advisors Aid in Deliberation Consensus Conferences Diverse Sampling Expert Presentations with Q&A Extensive Deliberation Attempted Unanimous Conclusion National Issues Forums Few or No Limits in Sampling Carefully Prepared Briefing Booklets Specific Guidelines for Discussion Emphasize Mutual Respect & Dialogue Trained Moderators Deliberative Polling Representative Sampling of Individuals Attempts Balanced Information Q&A with Experts or Politicians Many Hours of Deliberation

7. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Current Civic Engagement Produces Poor Data Data Sets Generated are Weak: Artificial / idealized spaces = little or no ecological validity. Treats individuals as static and independent of actual lived context. Vacates or hides the centrality of rhetoric in shaping perception and opinion. Models Fail in most U.S. Populations: Baseline commonalities do not emerge. External / artificial force is required to produce and sustain participation. Key stakeholders find little value in the results. Especially Problematic in Emerging Technology Perceptions: Participants lack sufficient awareness and understanding of the technology. Fair and balanced presentations do not reflect how risk perceptions are shaped. Analogues are contentious and no actual events exist to shape perceptions. Benefit values of emerging tech are often unrealistically high or very vague.

8. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Practicable Democracy as an Alternative Foundation Practicable: Able to be put into practice, connected to existing practice. Principles of Practicable Democracy: Democracy is a set of practices, not a set of institutions. Deliberation and reasoning are only one part of persuasion and opinion. Private reasons have public force and relevance. Democracy is often rowdy. Rules and structures have deliberative and persuasive force in themselves. Something like democracy is always possible (and usually in play).

9. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Impacts of Practicable Democracy on Engagement Events Site Selection: Cities, Locales, and Virtual Spaces that Fit the Objective. Specific Existing Venues for Select or Diverse Populations. Understand the Site and Population as it Exists Prior to Intervention. Information & Framing: Focus on the Media and Formats Normally Used by the Audience. Use Existing Materials when Appropriate. Simulated Materials should Mirror the Population’s Chosen Sources. Accept Bias as a Normal Condition. Let Audiences Seek Information Independently. Deliberative Methods: Whatever Exists at the Sites. Any Rationale or Judgment Model Actually Used is Presumed Valid. Objectives of Deliberation: Design of the Engagement is Not Allowed to Drive Outcomes. Clearly Defined Outcomes that Drive Design. Minimize the Tendency of Difficulty to Inhibit Research Design.

10. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Specific Application to the NCSU-NIRT Site Selection: Nano-District Mapping as Guidance on Cities. Population Diversity within Cities Guides Existing Venue Selection. Diverse Virtual Spaces where Engagement would not be Alien or Intrusive. Information & Framing: Pre-test on Information Sources or Extrapolate from Previous Study. Use Nexis Database, YouTube, etc. for Population-Appropriate Materials. Work with Local Journalism Students for Simulated Material where Necessary. Do Not Police Information Flow. Deliberative Methods: Observe as Much as Possible (before, during, and after if possible). Minimize Observer-Influence. Record as Much Raw Data as Possible and Code Later. Objective: Collect data on participants’ perceptions of nanotechnologies’ risks and their methods of collectively forming those perceptions.

11. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Cautions about Data Collection from Engagement Events Asking about Risk can Increase Risk Perception (Similar to Anxiety). Pre-Tests can Produce Interpretive Frames of Salience. Self-Reporting May Only Measure Reporter-Perception. “Influence-Outcome” Engagement Events May Actually Survey Desired Influences. Observation can Alter Participant Behavior. Recording may Amplify the Effect of Observation on Participant Behavior. Surveys Capture Less of the Ecology and Communication than Observation. Self-Transparency is Dubious.

12. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Initial Thoughts on NCSU-NIRT Engagement Data Collection Reduce Reliance on Surveys but Retain them where Appropriate. Record in the Least Intrusive Way Possible (Ideally full video). Quantitative Coding of Recorded Events with Multiple Coders and Established Schemes. Qualitative Analysis of Communication Strategies and Dynamics. Commit Hundreds of Personnel Hours to the Events and to Analysis.

13. © 2008 Pat J. Gehrke“Public Engagement Models and the Possibility of Practicable Democracy.” Final Thoughts This is Not Intended to Replace or Displace Existing Engagement Models. Practicable Democracy is (and always must be) a Work-in-Progress. Practicable Democracy Should Resist Becoming a Model, but is an Orientation. HELP!!!