Deliberative Values

Let's begin with a simple definition of 'deliberation':

Quote

We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values, and interests regarding matters of common concern.[@bachtiger2018] (emphasis added)

As defined, deliberation is separate to (but consistent with) processes such as decision-making, polling, and voting—processes that are common components of public engagement. However, deliberation is a process that aims at mutual understanding and building consensus, prior to decision-making. As such, deliberative forms of engagement place an emphasis on the communicative value inherent in deliberation as a form of dialogue (or, "mutual communication"), instead of the practical value of decision-making. An illustrative example can help explain why this distinction matters:

Conflicting Preferences

A team of social research scientists working with the local government is undertaking research into public attitudes concerning the environmental impact of potential traffic policies. They have decided to engage a representative group of local residents to explore a range of policies under consideration, including the following:

1. The local government would like to increase investment in access to electric vehicle charging points. However, because they have limited resources available, they are only able to deploy 100 charging points in five areas with the highest number of electric vehicles, while also creating a central hub used by those visiting the city centre.
2. The local government would like to use automated number plate recognition on residential roads that are commonly used by commuters to bypass traffic on busier routes. This policy is supported by a strong body of empirical evidence that shows it can discourage non-essential journeys and also helps ease congestion in parts of the city, in turn lowering pollution.

Consider what would happen if the research team simply choose to ask the residents to vote on whether these policies should be adopted. It's possible that they would both be approved by a majority who see them as positive investments in renewable energy and the environment. But upon deeper reflection, the policies could be quite divisive.

The first policy, for instance, could be seen as problematic because of its impact upon socionecomic inequality. That is, the policy would likely favour already affluent neighbourhoods because of the prioritisation of areas that have the "highest number of electric vehicles". In turn, limited resources would be diverted from already disadvantaged communities, further widening socioeconomic inequality.

In addition, the second policy could split the group according to whether they rely heavily on roads (e.g. for commuting or work) or prefer quieter streets because they are able to work remotely. Despite the positive environmental impact, there would likely be a significant level of inconvenience and disruption to some groups.

Focusing solely on the positive value of environmental impact, therefore, would overlook additional values of fairness and welfare. In both cases, following deliberation, it is unlikely that such policies would receive unanimous approval or disapproval. However, through deliberation, a space could be created to allow all voices to be heard and for conflicting values to emerge. The manner in which these conflicts are handled depends, ultimately, on how the engagement activity is designed.

One option would be to forego any voting or polling entirely, in favour of additional research, consultation, and public engagement (e.g. soliciting additional views). We will return to these topics in a later chapter.

For the time being, it is sufficient to simply note that public deliberation about the means and ends of scientific and technological innovation, such as the implementation of research and innovation through public policy as above, need not be oriented solely towards practical decision-making. Instead, by focusing on the values inherent to communication and deliberation, we are able to identify and emphasise particular values that ought to guide deliberation in a democratic system.

Identifying Values for Effective Deliberation

In reviewing the literature on such values, Bachtiger et al.[@bachtiger2018] identify two generations of standards for good deliberation—the latter of which have grown out of and developed upon the first.

First Generation	Second Generation
Respect	Unrevised
Absence of power	Unrevised
Equality	Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedoms, equal opportunity for influence
Reasons	Relevant considerations
Aim at consensus	Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
Common good orientation	Orentation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
Publicity	Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g., in negotiations when representatives can be trusted)
Accountability	Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
Sincerity	Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality

Rather than reviewing each of these, we'll just consider two with an eye towards understanding the values expressed by such standards.

First, 'absence of power' is a standard that serves as a precondition for values such as equality, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI). For example, the imbalance of power that exists between experts and members of the public can create a situation in which the latter feel uncomfortable expressing their honest thoughts or opinions for fear of being wrong. Similarly, deliberation within research teams can be impacted by unequal power relations between senior researchers and graduate students, preventing the emergence and exploration of novel ideas.

Second, aiming at both consensus and clarifying conflict reinforces the inherent value of public communication and mutual understanding, offsetting the prioritisation of more instrumental values such as decision-making. In the case of our two policies above, for example, aiming at consensus, even if it cannot be reached unanimously, can at least create a situation in which the different voices in the debate are better able to appreciate what matters to other members of their community. This is an often under-appreciated value by research teams, who are focused on influencing policy or pursuing research objectives. However, deliberation that upholds the standards above can also increase trust and respect between communities (e.g. scientists and the public)—an additional goal that we considered in the previous chapter.

Why EDI matters?

Equality, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI) as a collection of values has received widespread and growing attention in recent years. There are many reasons why this increased focus is both significant and vital. These reasons are typically contextual, and reflect moral priorities of the domains in which the values emerge (e.g. STEM research).

In the context of public engagement, equal, diverse, and inclusive deliberation helps support a public that

1. reflectively recognises shared needs and interests,
2. produces the best solutions to the problems involved in meeting those needs and interests,
3. brings individual into a close and fulfilling relationship with a community.[@chambers2018]

As with the remaining standards identified by Bachtiger et al.,[@bachtiger2018] the above two express important values that are enacted through effective deliberation and public engagement. However, there are myriad barriers that can prevent such values from being realised. These include:

• Unbalanced relationships of power
• Increased polarisation that impedes consensus building
• Temporal constraints
• Cognitive biases

The challenge for any researcher is, therefore, 'how to navigate these barriers and pursue value-based objectives of effective public engagement'. This is particularly challenging when the barriers originate, in part, because of competing research priorities. For instance, the priority of ensuring a sufficient sense of urgency on the completion of research deliverables can disincentivise lengthy deliberative activities.

It is worth noting, therefore, that the standards and values identified above are normative ideals. That is, they are motivational and aspirational principles for good deliberation but may not be obtainable in practice {% cite bachtiger2018 %}.

Values for Additional Forms of Public Engagement (Activity 2.1)

We have considered values associated with the goal of democratic deliberation aimed at consensus building and mutual understanding. However, there are other goals for public engagement, as we saw in the previous chapter:

• Improved Public Awareness of Science and Technology
• Establishing Trust, Legitimacy, and Social License
• Improving Social Welfare
• Safeguarding and Supporting Human Rights

What additional values (or standards) do you associate with these additional goals of public engagement?

Engagement in Principle vs. Engagement in Practice

Consider, the principle "ensure all individuals can participate equally", which safeguards vital social values of justice and inclusivity. While laudable as a principle, it is, of course, impossible to achieve in practice.

There are simply too many cognitive biases or social inequalities that affect our ability to participate on an equal footing. Higher levels of educational ability, natural charisma, and lived experience can all impart advantages that separate participants based on their capacity for participation. Two points can be raised in response to this challenge.

First, as researchers, it is always important to ensure that an ideal does not end up as the enemy of the good. Values are often expressed as ethical principles that prescribe what we ought to do under ideal circumstances (e.g. as rational agents with perfect information). While potentially valid as evaluative criteria (i.e. as post hoc means for determining what is right or wrong after the fact), they often fail to translate well as decision procedures. Nevertheless, they can still serve action-guiding roles in steering us towards ethical actions or behaviours.

Second, as Bachtiger et al.[@bachtiger2018] acknowledge, there are often good reasons to strive harder in pursuit of some values over others. This allows a team to prioritise values that are particularly relevant for their project (e.g. those that matter to their stakeholder or affected users). For instance, perhaps a team of epidemiologists are concerned with understanding the social and environmental risk factors associated with a specific disease that disproportionately affects those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In this case, the research team would be justified in prioritising values that promote health equity or amplify the voices of marginalised stakeholders, even if pursuing such values is to the neglect of others.

There is, ultimately, no simple procedure or algorithm for choosing between values. We will explore practical steps and procedures that can help with this often challenging process in later chapters, but the point to keep in mind at present is that in designing engagement activities or carrying out scientific or technological research and development you will always be making a choice between certain values. Having an awareness and understanding of these values will at least enable you to do so in an informed and principled manner.