Utilizing “On Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design

Abstract

Experts play important roles in supporting public deliberation. These roles include developing and vetting background materials, participating in question-and-answer sessions with citizens, and giving pubic presentations. Rarely, though, are experts asked to be on hand during deliberative forums, whereby they have the opportunity to interact with deliberating groups. The inclusion of experts during forums presents a tension because, although they can elevate the quality of the conversation by correcting factual errors, they can also, perhaps unknowingly, crowd out and silence citizen, or “nonexpert,” participation. Careful consideration of communication design can help public deliberation practitioners manage this tension so that experts, when involved in forums, enhance rather than undermine the deliberative process. Taking communication as design, we analyze the interaction of an invited expert at a water scarcity forum in Northern Colorado who derailed discussion and hindered dialogue by “going rogue.” We then turn to stasis theory to conceptualize the effective inclusion of technical experts in public deliberations. Through forum design and training practices, we propose that experts can help resolve issues of conjecture and definition in a manner that frees deliberating groups to discuss substantive and subjective issues of quality and policy.

Keywords:

• Communication Design
• Public Deliberation
• Expertise
• Science Communication
• Water Conflict

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the guest editors and reviewers for their suggestions for revisions.

Notes

[1] Public deliberation can refer to both a type of talk and a broader set of analytic and social processes that appear in multiple political communication contexts (Gastil & Black, 2008). While we generally subscribe to the later, our analysis focuses on interaction during deliberative forums. We use the terms “deliberative discussion” and “deliberative conversation” to reference this interaction. When we use the term public deliberation, we reference the broader sense of the term.

[2] We recognize that the information deficit model contradicts common understandings of communication and public opinion within the communication discipline. Yet, many scientists follow this model, which poses challenges because it shapes how they want to interact with the public.

[3] The first two authors worked for the Center for Public Deliberation and played a central role in designing the deliberative format and training the facilitators. Thus we are both designers and analysts of our design. We hope these dual roles speak to our appreciation for and desire to understand the consequences a design holds for interaction (Aakhus, 2001).

[4] The placemat for this event is available on the project website: http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/ThePoudreRunsThroughIt/.

[5] The phrase “on tap but not on top” originally comes from a quote by Winston Churchill, but it has come to represent a general role of experts within policy-making. Our deliberative design uses this phrase but adapts it to fit a particular design for expert interaction in deliberative discussion.