Deliberating vs. Deciding in a Public Disputes Context

There still seems to be a big gap between the “deliberation crowd” and “the public dispute resolution crowd.” The deliberation folks (like the fine group called the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation) is betting that people will learn to be more tolerant of contrary views, and maybe even change their own views on controversial topics, by taking part is well-structured dialogues. The public dispute resolution people (including the public policy section of the Association for Conflict Resolution) are more worried about generating agreements than they are about changing anyone’s mind. While the two groups pursue slightly different objectives, and emphasize different methods, we need for them to combine forces if we are ever going to make progress on the vexing public disputes that have tied us up in knots.

The means and ends of deliberation

Imagine trying to bring together people who are passionately committed, one way or the other, on questions like gun control, abortion or climate change. What’s the best outcome you can imagine? In my view, we’d like them to listen more carefully to the views of their opponents and think hard about ways in which they might find common cause in spite of their disagreements. So, both sides could probably agree that steps should be taken to be reduce the number of children wounded or killed accidentally by gun accidents, or that poor women should have better access to pre-natal care, or that the elderly living in un-air conditioned public housing units might have access to cooling centers when the temperature goes about 95 degrees for days in a row. If groups with opposing views can find ways to work together to achieve an objective they share, the individuals involved tend to stop “demonizing” each other (i.e. thinking the worst about a category of people who they don’t even know). The kinds of dialogues that get people to listen, and maybe empathize even when they disagree, don’t take place at a public hearing or in front of a tv camera. People of good will need time to get to know each other and hear each other out. Facilitators in such situations know how to set and enforce pretty simple ground rules that promise everyone a safe environment. The ultimate goal is to reconcile the parties, not for one side to convert others to their view.

The means and ends of public dispute resolution

When public agencies have to make decisions -- like granting a casino license, allowing an historical building to be cleared away, or deciding whether or not to allow a new power plan to be built in a particular location – people with strongly held views want to participate. They don’t just want to be heard, they want to play a role in the decision. The best way to do this is to invite representatives of key stakeholder groups, chosen by those groups, to see if they can negotiate an agreement. If they can, their recommendations will usually be taken quite seriously by the officials who have to take action. In the public arena, many such problem-solving efforts need to be preceded by extensive joint fact finding (so the parties have a common pool of useful information). Mediators know how to help elected and appointed officials identify and convene all the relevant stakeholders, work with these groups to formulate shared ground rules and gather useful information, generate proposals that offers an outcome better for all sides than no agreement, and assist the parties in producing a signed agreement that officials can implement. The goal is to use informal problem-solving methods to supplement the usual administrative procedures and avoid costly and time-consuming litigation (that sets no useful precedent).

Why the two need to be more intimately connected

Getting concerned citizens together to achieve a better understanding of other peoples’ views is no small task. But, it isn’t enough. Our democratic commitments go beyond giving everyone two minutes at a microphone. The public wants a chance to participate in actual decision-making. How can we accomplish this when outspoken individuals with extreme views tend to dominate? We can supplement the basic mechanisms of representative democracy with informal problem-solving that seeks to generate consensus proposals. These will guarantee officials that if they accept what is recommended, almost everyone in the community will stand up and cheer. And, if you think that there is no way of bridging the gap between the “sides” in serious public controversies, you haven’t been paying attention. This is happening all over the world. The key is to involve the relevant groups, not a hodge-podge of outspoken individuals (or even a statistically valid sub-set of residents, who like a jury, who are supposed to think like their peers). The actual stakeholder groups will be needed to legitimize implementation of whatever agreements are reached; so, it is better to have them select representatives at the outset to sit around the table. The ongoing internal dialogue within each group is likely to generate support for a reasonable package if one is produced. Outspoken individuals with strongly held views are not accountable to anyone. Group representatives need to stay in touch with their stakeholders.

Experts on deliberation knows how to manage micro-conversations -- the give-and-take among the people at the table. Problem-solving is more effective if time is invested in building rapport among the participants. Generating empathy and understanding is a good thing, not a bad thing. However, it usually leads to clarity about why and how disagreements have emerged. Dispute resolvers know how to manage the maco-conversation and generate agreement, and not just clarity about the sources of disagreement. That is, they can make sure that officials with the formal authority to decide, convene the right parties in a way that ensures political legitimacy. They also know how to organize joint fact-finding. Reaching agreements that make people feel good, but don’t reflect the technical or scientific realities is dangerous. We need these two groups to team up.

What you can do to help

When public controversies arise in your community, don’t hesitate to suggest that public officials authorize a combination of dialogue and problem-solving. Remind them that won’t be giving up their final decision-making authority. Not only will they be able to take credit for improving the climate for productive public conversations, but they will be putting themselves in a position to take actions that will be applauded by all of their constituents.

When the question comes up about who should participate, tell them to ask a professional mediator to undertaken a stakeholder assessment that will help them map the conflict and ensure appropriate group representation. Allowing the most outspoken individuals a place at the table is counter-productive – they will just continue to sound off. All the relevant stakeholder groups must choose their own representatives, including proxies for hard to represent interests, and have a hand in devising problem-solving ground rules that everyone signs before the problem-solving discussions begin. For more details, see Susskind and Cruikshank, Breaking Robert’s Rules, Oxford University Press, 2006 including revised versions in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russian, Italian, Chinese, Dutch and Japanese.

Talking to Climate Skeptics

On Wednesday, November 10th, I had an opportunity to speak to a packed room of students and community residents at Harvard College seeking advice on how to talk to climate skeptics. The premise was that students would soon be heading home for Thanksgiving. They were looking for advice on how to talk to family and friends around the holiday table who either don't believe that global warming is happening, or accept the fact that the climate is getting warmer, but attribute relatively recent temperature changes to natural rather than man-made causes. To get things started, we heard from a local radio talk show host who really is a climate skeptic. He made it very clear that he doesn't trust Al Gore, is sure that scientists disagree about almost everything (because that's what science requires), and thinks that anyone who believes that climate change is the result of human activity (rather than cyclical natural phenomena) has been sold a bill of goods.

First, I tried to make clear that seeking to convert "non-believers" is probably a mistake, and is certainly no way to encourage constructive dialogue. Rather, I suggested, the goal of dialogue ought to be to share ideas, advance the cause of mutual understanding, and see what opportunities to reach agreement might exist -- in spite of fundamental differences in beliefs or levels of understanding. A number of the students present found this unacceptable. From their standpoint, the threat posed by the continued build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so frightening, they are compelled to convince anyone who doesn't believe this to admit that they are wrong. These want to repeat and review what the vast majority of atmospheric scientists know to be true -- the atmosphere is warming; this is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and methane; this build up is caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels; and the end result will be a worldwide catastrophy -- sea level rise that will inundate vast coastal areas, particularly in the developing world; increasing storm intensification the will cause destructive flooding and Katrina-like devastation;increased drought in some areas and increasing numbers of extremely hot days that may cause massive eco-migration; more rapid spread of airborne disease, and irreversible harm to a range of marine and terrestrial species and habitats. The skeptic on the dais with me indicated that scientist can't possibly know exactly when and where such things will and won't happen (and he's right). He also insisted that even if warming is occurring, it is impossible to know for sure whether it is mostly or entirely a man-made or nothing more than a natural phenomenon.

That was my cue. I said I didn't think that mattered. I urged people interested in engaging in useful conversation with skeptics to shift their conversations to a discussion of risk -- to talk about risk and risk management. I used the example of earthquakes. We don't need to know for sure whether (where and when) an earthquake will occur to seriously consider taking action to minimize its serious adverse effects an earthquake would cause if it does occur. It turns out, we can require construction standards in new buildings that will protect people from collapsing structures. We can even retrofit existing buildings to make them more earthquake proof (although this comes at a cost). While there doesn't seem to be anything we can do to reduce the odds of an earthquake occurring, there are lots of things we can do (including organizing and practicing emergency relief efforts) to save lives and reduce misery and reconstruction costs when earthquakes do occur. Even if the majority of scientists are right -- that if we don't reduce to 350 - 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents in the next fifty years the worst effects of global warming will be impossible to correct, we won't be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough over the next three decades to mitigate the effects of global warming. So, given the chance that the many thousands of scientists around the world who study these issue might be right, we could look for things to do that will reduce the disastrous effects if climate change is, in fact, occurring. And, if we could find things that also serve to achieve other laudable objectives (that help almost everyone), why would anyone be opposed to that?

So, I suggested reframing the discussion around what is called adaptation. If we can switch to energy sources that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels, but instead rely on infinite energy sources like sunlight, wind, ocean waves, biofuels and the flow of fresh water, we may be able to simultaneously reduce the adverse effects of climate change (if it does occur), decrease our country's dependence on imported oil and gas, dramatically reduce the health dangers to human beings, minimize the ecological damage caused by air and water pollution and the degradation of surface lands, and create more jobs in our own country. This would be a "no-regrets" response to the possibility of climate change. Similarly, if we can help every household reduce the amount of electricity it wastes (especially at peak times), we can eliminate the need to build new power plants, thereby reducing everybody's electricity rates and saving all consumers money. Even if the risks are not fully predictable, a shift to renewable energy (especially if planned in a way that compensates anyone who suffers any losses in the short term as a result of the shift), would be a more desirable way to proceed. If you think about each component of climate change risk, it should be possible to brainstorm adaptive responses that minimize the chances of serious harm to the public and to the environment while simultaneously improving the economy, and enhancing social well-being. That's what you want to ask skeptics to think about. Ask them to join you in various "thought experiments:"

"Whatever you think the chances are that a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, and that such increases will trigger a host of dangerous and costly consequences, can we brainstorm cost-effective ways to reduce the harm that would occur if the worst happens and achieve a host of other benefits at the same time?"

Improved emergency preparedness in cities will help if flooding of the sort that occurred in New Orleans happens more often. (Increased storm intensity is one of the presumed effects of climate change.) It will also help cities whether any kind of natural or man-made emergency. Almost every city could do more at a modest cost to update and practice its emergency response procedures.

Investments in expensive transportation, wastewater treatment and other municipal infrastructure should probably be made greater consideration for the possibility of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion into fresh water marshes, and increased storm intensity. It would be crazy to be in a position of having to pay off infrastructure bonds long after a facility is no longer useable because we didn't think twice about climate change risks. Instead, by factoring the risks associated with climate change into infrastructure planning, safer locations or new designs for new facilities might be selected.

As we think about the possibility of a lot more hot days (over 95 degrees farenheit) every summer, what improvements might we make in public and elderly housing that would help people without air conditioning survive? It should be possible to design or retrofit public housing units and to add trees and plantings to keep these units cooler. It should also possible to designate public cooling centers along with ways of helping the disabled get to these locations during a heat wave. Many lives could be saved. These are things worth figuring out regardless of whether anyone is sure that the increase in the number of hot summer days over the past decade was caused by climate change. People died in Chicago two summers ago because of what is now called "the heat island effect."

When you getting into brainstorming sessions with skeptics, avoid asking yes or no questions. Instead ask "when, where and how" questions. How could we reduce certain risks while accomplishing other worthwhile goals? When we have the information in hand, and the public dialogue that follows could look at the full range of costs and benefits (and I don't just mean in dollar terms) what kinds of choices might be made? People with very different views about what climate change science allows us to know might still agree on useful steps to take to reduce the risks associated with climate change because these same activities would help them achieve other things they see as important.

Don't personalize these discussions. Focus on outcomes that would respect everyone's principles. Talk to people you disagree with in the same way you would like to have them talk to you.

Don't paint people into corners by saying something like: "Since science knows Fact A to be true, then you must agree that everyone ought to take Action 1." That will just provoke a counter-attack arguing that there must be someone (somewhere on the web) who disagrees wit Fact A. Moreover, everyone who agrees that Fact A is true will not agree that only Action 1 is the logical thing to do. Instead, ask "Forget for a moment whether Fact A is true or not. What are things that people who don't necessarily agree about Fact A would suggest are worth doing for a variety of reasons?