Expert government agencies’ contribution to public deliberation: balancing the need for expertise with political equality
Concern regarding an increasingly ambivalent relationship between expert knowledge and democratic decision-making comes from two directions. One laments the declining legitimacy of expert knowledge. The other identifies risks in experts growing in strength due to scientization of decision-making. Both raise concerns about democratic impacts, where the gap between demands of knowledge and public understanding of science becomes colonized by populists or technocratic authoritarians. A critical challenge is therefore to find working relationships between the public and science that balance the need for expertise with political equality. Government agencies that produce scientific evidence are pivotal to meeting this challenge. Depending on agencies’ technical reputation, they may contribute to public deliberation, but they may also freeze deliberation by framing debates in narrow terms. To explore how relationships between the public and sciences might develop, this project will investigate how government agencies’ efforts to maintain reputations for technical expertise influence public democratic deliberation. To do so it will map relationships between publics and expert government agencies through surveys, experiments and comparative case studies. Bridging the intersections of expertise, public opinion, deliberative theory, and government agency reputational literatures, it will focus in particularly on agencies within Health and Environment portfolios in Sweden and Australia.
Final report
Background
A functioning democracy requires arenas and processes in which interested parties can exchange arguments for and against policy decisions. Without such an exchange of arguments, where justifications based on relevant information are weighed against each other, democratic decision-making becomes a chimera; a charade far removed from the rule of the people that should be the essence of democratic systems. This core function, however, seems to be challenged by other social forces at present. References to inaccurate or highly biased information, combined with a polarization driven by an unwillingness to understand the views of others, threaten to undermine the conditions for such public deliberation. This project examined the mechanisms that regulate the relationship between knowledge and politics in order to better understand the conditions necessary for experts, politicians, and citizens to jointly contribute to decisions in a functioning democratic system.
Aim and Research Question
The main research question of the project was "how expert government agencies contribute to informed deliberation among citizens". These authorities are tasked with communicating science-based expertise in specific areas such as economics or public health. A starting point for the project was therefore that, under certain conditions, these key actors should be able to play an important role in how expertise can stimulate informed public deliberation. Depending on their position in the political system and how they communicate their expertise, they can contribute positively to well-functioning deliberation, but they can also inhibit democratic discussion by severely limiting which policy options are perceived as relevant. The project therefore aimed to increase knowledge about the circumstances under which expert authorities contribute in different ways to informed deliberation on important policy decisions.
Implementation of the project
In accordance with the project plan, the research question has been investigated through a combination of methods and source material, such as media studies, survey experiments, interviews and analysis of public documents. The project included both case studies with one country (Sweden) and comparative studies with Australia and several other countries. Results have been published or are in preparation in leading international journals and in book chapters published by international publishers. The project has been carried out by three project members in accordance with the proposal. The project leader is based in Sweden, while the other two researchers are based in Australia. The project has largely been carried out during the Covid19 restrictions, which were extensive, not least in Australia, affecting the conditions for carrying out the planned studies and also affecting the content of the project. In particular, public health issues became more prominent than originally planned. Despite this, the project remained true to the main research question and contributed to the overlapping literature on which the application was based, in particular research on political psychology, opinion formation, science communication, governance, and deliberative democracy.
Findings
The answer to the research question on how expert government agencies contribute to informed deliberation can be summarized in three main findings. The most important factors are
a) the structure of the network that contributes expert knowledge
b) mechanisms activated in case of a crisis
c) how science communication is framed
The Structure of Expert Advisory Networks
A comparative study between Canada, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland (in collaboration with members of the project's International Advisory Board) develops a new way of studying the structure of the networks of actors that communicate expert knowledge to policymakers and the public. The empirical results show that the structure of expert networks, their density, the degree of centralization and the role of key actors in these networks differed radically in the management of COVID-19. The open, decentralized expert networks in Switzerland and Belgium, with different types of actors in ad hoc institutions organized on a temporary basis, seem to have fostered the flow of ideas and facilitated strategic changes in public health policy. Experts in Canada (Quebec) and Sweden drew different conclusions from similar information, as we show in a separate book chapter. At the same time, the structure of the expert advisory networks had some similarities, but differed markedly from the networks in Switzerland and Belgium. The stable, rather limited and closed networks, strongly concentrated around a constitutionally regulated actor (an authority or a ministry), neutralized or at least limited the spread of internal disagreements and allowed the views of this actor to be publicly discussed to a very limited extent. Such a position in the network is reinforced if the central actor is in a context like the Swedish one. In Sweden, expert authorities are very little questioned and their strong reputation is largely based on perceptions of their high technical competence. Thus, the ability of an expert authority to influence or even steer the deliberation in a field is largely determined by its position and reputation in national networks of advisory experts.
Mechanisms activated during crises
In a book on the political discourse during Covid-19 in thirteen different countries, we show how a coherent national media narrative underpinned the Swedish Covid strategy that received so much attention. This narrative, which focused on science combined with the rational judgments of citizens, was mainly launched and supported by the Swedish Public Health Agency. It may seem strange that this controversial approach has been challenged to a relatively small extent. However, in two studies of media coverage during Covid-19, we show how the circumstances of a crisis can favor mechanisms that work against pluralism and instead favor a monotonization of public deliberation. Despite the fact that Denmark and Sweden pursued very different strategies and that the media were dominated by very different actors (politicians and experts), a monotonization of media coverage could be observed in both countries. In both Denmark and Sweden, homogeneous arguments were put forward in support of the strategy chosen by each government. These arguments were reproduced in the media, while possible alternative strategies chosen by the neighboring country were marginalized. In crisis situations, such uniform communication by the authorities can have many advantages. At the same time, the mechanisms activated in a crisis can contribute to a limited deliberation, with the risk of deteriorating the quality of decisions and, by extension, reducing democratic legitimacy.
Framing science communication
It is largely unknown whether and how the framing of science communication affects the conditions for democratic deliberation. Deliberative theory has long suggested that deliberation is stimulated when uncertainties and possible disagreements within the research community are acknowledged and when communicators adopt an inviting rather than a persuasive stance. However, this is by no means certain, as we show in a study comparing how people in Sweden and Australia respond to different types of science-based communication about genome editing. Half of the respondents were presented with information that was framed as if the state of the science was fairly certain, and were told that an expert authority wanted to provide information about the state of the science. The other half of the sample was instead presented with more deliberatively framed information that allowed for some uncertainty in the course of research, and where the agency instead invited them to discuss the benefits of genome editing. In Australia, this variation made no difference, while people in the Swedish sample were encouraged to engage in deliberation when presented with the more persuasive information. Our interpretation is that when the state of science is framed as more certain and persuasive, in some contexts it evokes commitment to either communicate this to others or to question the claims. However, more research is needed to explore what effect different types of framing of science-based communication may have on the willingness to deliberate on a particular issue. However, very preliminary analyses from a deliberative event on climate and environment in Sweden, the effects of which we are still studying, point in the same direction. Thus, it seems that communication of the state of science that emphasizes openness, uncertainties or disagreements among scientists does not necessarily have the positive impact on the conditions for deliberation that was previously thought. Or at least that the effects may differ depending on the context in which the information is presented.
Dissemination and collaboration
The results are openly available and designed for a wide audience interested in social science. Collaboration has taken place with a "Citizens' Assembly on Climate", where a representative sample of people formulated concrete proposals that were presented to Swedish parliamentarians.
New research questions
The results raise new questions. Empirical research should investigate how open versus centralized expert networks lead to informed decisions. If media coverage becomes monotonous, this raises normative questions about whether this should be countered, and empirical questions about what is effective. If science communication framed as "continuous knowledge seeking" leads to less engagement, there is a dilemma between fundamental scientific beliefs and the conditions for democratic deliberation. It points to new challenges for a well-functioning democracy based on citizens exchanging arguments for and against policy decisions.
A functioning democracy requires arenas and processes in which interested parties can exchange arguments for and against policy decisions. Without such an exchange of arguments, where justifications based on relevant information are weighed against each other, democratic decision-making becomes a chimera; a charade far removed from the rule of the people that should be the essence of democratic systems. This core function, however, seems to be challenged by other social forces at present. References to inaccurate or highly biased information, combined with a polarization driven by an unwillingness to understand the views of others, threaten to undermine the conditions for such public deliberation. This project examined the mechanisms that regulate the relationship between knowledge and politics in order to better understand the conditions necessary for experts, politicians, and citizens to jointly contribute to decisions in a functioning democratic system.
Aim and Research Question
The main research question of the project was "how expert government agencies contribute to informed deliberation among citizens". These authorities are tasked with communicating science-based expertise in specific areas such as economics or public health. A starting point for the project was therefore that, under certain conditions, these key actors should be able to play an important role in how expertise can stimulate informed public deliberation. Depending on their position in the political system and how they communicate their expertise, they can contribute positively to well-functioning deliberation, but they can also inhibit democratic discussion by severely limiting which policy options are perceived as relevant. The project therefore aimed to increase knowledge about the circumstances under which expert authorities contribute in different ways to informed deliberation on important policy decisions.
Implementation of the project
In accordance with the project plan, the research question has been investigated through a combination of methods and source material, such as media studies, survey experiments, interviews and analysis of public documents. The project included both case studies with one country (Sweden) and comparative studies with Australia and several other countries. Results have been published or are in preparation in leading international journals and in book chapters published by international publishers. The project has been carried out by three project members in accordance with the proposal. The project leader is based in Sweden, while the other two researchers are based in Australia. The project has largely been carried out during the Covid19 restrictions, which were extensive, not least in Australia, affecting the conditions for carrying out the planned studies and also affecting the content of the project. In particular, public health issues became more prominent than originally planned. Despite this, the project remained true to the main research question and contributed to the overlapping literature on which the application was based, in particular research on political psychology, opinion formation, science communication, governance, and deliberative democracy.
Findings
The answer to the research question on how expert government agencies contribute to informed deliberation can be summarized in three main findings. The most important factors are
a) the structure of the network that contributes expert knowledge
b) mechanisms activated in case of a crisis
c) how science communication is framed
The Structure of Expert Advisory Networks
A comparative study between Canada, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland (in collaboration with members of the project's International Advisory Board) develops a new way of studying the structure of the networks of actors that communicate expert knowledge to policymakers and the public. The empirical results show that the structure of expert networks, their density, the degree of centralization and the role of key actors in these networks differed radically in the management of COVID-19. The open, decentralized expert networks in Switzerland and Belgium, with different types of actors in ad hoc institutions organized on a temporary basis, seem to have fostered the flow of ideas and facilitated strategic changes in public health policy. Experts in Canada (Quebec) and Sweden drew different conclusions from similar information, as we show in a separate book chapter. At the same time, the structure of the expert advisory networks had some similarities, but differed markedly from the networks in Switzerland and Belgium. The stable, rather limited and closed networks, strongly concentrated around a constitutionally regulated actor (an authority or a ministry), neutralized or at least limited the spread of internal disagreements and allowed the views of this actor to be publicly discussed to a very limited extent. Such a position in the network is reinforced if the central actor is in a context like the Swedish one. In Sweden, expert authorities are very little questioned and their strong reputation is largely based on perceptions of their high technical competence. Thus, the ability of an expert authority to influence or even steer the deliberation in a field is largely determined by its position and reputation in national networks of advisory experts.
Mechanisms activated during crises
In a book on the political discourse during Covid-19 in thirteen different countries, we show how a coherent national media narrative underpinned the Swedish Covid strategy that received so much attention. This narrative, which focused on science combined with the rational judgments of citizens, was mainly launched and supported by the Swedish Public Health Agency. It may seem strange that this controversial approach has been challenged to a relatively small extent. However, in two studies of media coverage during Covid-19, we show how the circumstances of a crisis can favor mechanisms that work against pluralism and instead favor a monotonization of public deliberation. Despite the fact that Denmark and Sweden pursued very different strategies and that the media were dominated by very different actors (politicians and experts), a monotonization of media coverage could be observed in both countries. In both Denmark and Sweden, homogeneous arguments were put forward in support of the strategy chosen by each government. These arguments were reproduced in the media, while possible alternative strategies chosen by the neighboring country were marginalized. In crisis situations, such uniform communication by the authorities can have many advantages. At the same time, the mechanisms activated in a crisis can contribute to a limited deliberation, with the risk of deteriorating the quality of decisions and, by extension, reducing democratic legitimacy.
Framing science communication
It is largely unknown whether and how the framing of science communication affects the conditions for democratic deliberation. Deliberative theory has long suggested that deliberation is stimulated when uncertainties and possible disagreements within the research community are acknowledged and when communicators adopt an inviting rather than a persuasive stance. However, this is by no means certain, as we show in a study comparing how people in Sweden and Australia respond to different types of science-based communication about genome editing. Half of the respondents were presented with information that was framed as if the state of the science was fairly certain, and were told that an expert authority wanted to provide information about the state of the science. The other half of the sample was instead presented with more deliberatively framed information that allowed for some uncertainty in the course of research, and where the agency instead invited them to discuss the benefits of genome editing. In Australia, this variation made no difference, while people in the Swedish sample were encouraged to engage in deliberation when presented with the more persuasive information. Our interpretation is that when the state of science is framed as more certain and persuasive, in some contexts it evokes commitment to either communicate this to others or to question the claims. However, more research is needed to explore what effect different types of framing of science-based communication may have on the willingness to deliberate on a particular issue. However, very preliminary analyses from a deliberative event on climate and environment in Sweden, the effects of which we are still studying, point in the same direction. Thus, it seems that communication of the state of science that emphasizes openness, uncertainties or disagreements among scientists does not necessarily have the positive impact on the conditions for deliberation that was previously thought. Or at least that the effects may differ depending on the context in which the information is presented.
Dissemination and collaboration
The results are openly available and designed for a wide audience interested in social science. Collaboration has taken place with a "Citizens' Assembly on Climate", where a representative sample of people formulated concrete proposals that were presented to Swedish parliamentarians.
New research questions
The results raise new questions. Empirical research should investigate how open versus centralized expert networks lead to informed decisions. If media coverage becomes monotonous, this raises normative questions about whether this should be countered, and empirical questions about what is effective. If science communication framed as "continuous knowledge seeking" leads to less engagement, there is a dilemma between fundamental scientific beliefs and the conditions for democratic deliberation. It points to new challenges for a well-functioning democracy based on citizens exchanging arguments for and against policy decisions.