📚 Back to all CSPS summaries
Disclaimer: The summaries and interpretations provided on this page are unofficial and have not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS).

Title: Understanding Deliberative Public Engagement

Date: 2025-04-16

Duration: 22m 3s

Summary

  • Dr. Margot Hurlbert is a Canada Research Chair in Climate Change, Energy and Sustainability who discusses deliberative public engagement and when it is needed in an era of polarization and distrust.
  • The central debate in policy-making concerns whether policy problems should be addressed technocratically through evidence-based decisions or through politicization and public engagement.
  • Policy framing is crucial for engaging people on issues that matter to them, as demonstrated by the fact that drought and flood resonated with Saskatchewan farmers while climate change as a concept did not engage them in discussion.
  • Breaking down large complex policy problems into smaller sub-policy problems is an effective strategy for engaging with people based on their interests, time, and the policy windows that are currently open for change.
  • The split ladder of participation is a framework that builds upon Arnstein’s 1969 Ladder of Participation but corrects its romanticization of constant citizen engagement by recognizing that not all decisions require public participation.
  • Structured policy problems with clear science and established values, such as regulations against toxic chemicals like DDT, do not require public engagement because the decisions have already been made and codified in regulations.
  • Complex or wicked policy problems like climate change have uncertainty in both the science and in people’s value systems, placing them at the opposite end of the spectrum from structured problems and requiring more deliberative engagement.
  • The split ladder framework aims to build public trust while avoiding the cliff edge of losing that trust, which can happen when people feel they are being manipulated or when communicators are perceived as being paid by industry interests.
  • Policy windows of opportunity for change are not always open and depend on factors like politicians creating legislative space, elections, or policy entrepreneurs opening up discursive space for environmental or other changes.
  • The lower left corner of the split ladder, originally seen as manipulation and therapy to be avoided, has been reconceptualized as a space where social and behavioral science can be used to attract interest in policy problems.
  • A policy paradox exists when words used in engagement sound good to the public but have very different technical meanings, such as the term “inherently safe” which has a specific engineering definition that differs from public understanding.
  • The danger zone in engagement occurs when using words with multiple meanings that resonate with people but create opportunities for losing trust through this paradox of politicization.
  • The goal of engagement is to move complex problems from the wicked problem space into social learning, where people learn together through listening, hearing one another, and engaging with interdisciplinary science.
  • When sufficient engagement occurs, policy problems can eventually move into the structured category where there is consensus on values and science, allowing for regulations, policy, and decisions to be made.
  • Experimental approaches to attract interest include using science fiction and humanities content, such as the creation of an “atomic eve” character to spark discussion about radiation rather than to manipulate or placate audiences.
  • Inclusive methodology involves talking to people about issues like climate change while using all of the concerns heard without excluding any perspectives or viewpoints.
  • Stakeholder participation and politicization do not in themselves guarantee that minority rights or the rights of nature will be protected, which is why constitutions remain critically important.
  • The duty to consult and the rights of Indigenous people are constitutionally protected and must not be conflated with or overridden by general public engagement frameworks like the split ladder.
  • Public judgment, which emphasizes values and ethics, is preferable to public opinion as an outcome of engagement processes.
  • Consensus in complex policy problems does not mean one hundred percent agreement, as there will always be opponents to complex problems and their solutions, but the goal is fair weighing of alternatives within a good discursive space.
  • The split ladder functions within a democracy where people’s engagement in policy-making is valued but recognizes that elected political leaders make decisions through delegated voting patterns.
  • It is unrealistic to expect every single decision to be made with public participation, which is why structured policy problems can be addressed by politicians passing legislation and regulation without public engagement.
  • No single government consistently gets public engagement right all the time, and building a strategy using frameworks like the split ladder helps governments think about when and how to engage.
  • Some northern European governments addressed climate-related issues early by connecting them to energy reliance concerns dating back to the 1970s gas shortages, demonstrating how policy framing can drive earlier action.
  • Different governments have had successful experiences with public participation depending on the specific policy problem, emphasizing the importance of policy mixes rather than single policies in isolation.
  • Climate change is identified as the most critical policy problem requiring engagement, with recent fires, flooding, droughts in prairie provinces, and hurricanes in the United States bringing this issue to the forefront.

Actionable Advice

  • Frame policy problems in ways that resonate with your specific audience's interests rather than using abstract or disconnected terminology that fails to engage them.
  • Break down large complex policy problems into smaller sub-policy problems to make engagement more manageable and relevant to people's specific concerns and available time.
  • Assess whether a policy problem is structured with clear science and established values or complex with uncertainty before deciding on the level of public engagement needed.
  • Build trust with the public by being transparent about affiliations and funding sources to avoid perceptions of manipulation or industry influence.
  • Identify and leverage policy windows of opportunity when they are open due to legislative changes, elections, or advocacy efforts rather than attempting engagement when the window is closed.
  • Use social and behavioral science techniques to attract interest in policy problems that people might not naturally engage with, such as through creative content or relatable examples.
  • Avoid using technical jargon or terms with specific professional meanings that the public might interpret differently, as this creates a policy paradox that can erode trust.
  • Create spaces for social learning where people can listen to one another, engage with interdisciplinary science, and learn together about complex issues.
  • Use inclusive methodologies that incorporate all concerns without excluding perspectives, ensuring diverse voices are heard in the engagement process.
  • Connect abstract policy problems to concrete, relatable experiences, such as linking radiation exposure to medical X-rays when discussing nuclear energy policy.
  • Distinguish between general public engagement and constitutionally protected consultation rights for Indigenous peoples, ensuring the latter are never subordinated to general engagement frameworks.
  • Aim for public judgment rather than public opinion by emphasizing values and ethics in your engagement processes.
  • Recognize that consensus does not require one hundred percent agreement and that opposition to complex policy solutions will always exist.
  • Develop engagement strategies that consider both scientific uncertainty and the diversity of social values related to the policy problem at hand.
  • Evaluate past engagement efforts to learn what worked and what didn't, using frameworks like the split ladder to improve future strategies.
  • Focus on creating fair discursive spaces where alternatives can be weighed appropriately rather than seeking unanimous agreement on contentious issues.
  • Consider policy mixes rather than single isolated policies when developing engagement strategies, as different problems require different approaches.
  • Use current events like climate-related disasters to create teachable moments and opportunities for meaningful engagement on related policy issues.

Feedback

Was this page useful? Please provide your feedback!