It is commonly assumed that contested societal issues can and should be resolved through debate. Examples abound, from school debating societies to the daily business of the British Parliament. But debates assume that there is only one right answer. They are combative in nature, and are about listening for flaws, defending assumptions and pursuing a predetermined outcome. They are about winning – and losing. Furthermore their outcomes are vulnerable to bias as a result of ‘debate asymmetry’ (Section 1.1) and ‘false balance’ (Section 3.4). By rehearsing their arguments, and through the impact on self-esteem of loss or gain, participants are driven further down their respective sides of the pyramid (Figure 3), and hence further apart in their convictions. Debate increases polarization. Yet the recognition that debate has unhelpful outcomes is not novel; it was the flawed nature of debate that motivated Socrates to propose dialectics as a preferred alternative.
The advantages of dialectic – or dialogue – are manifold. The starting assumption is that all participants have useful contributions to make. The approach is collaborative, is at least as much about listening as it is about speaking, and is aimed at finding common ground (and hence draws on the potential for reducing antagonism through working for a common purpose discussed in Section 2.5). It focuses on exploring assumptions, discovering new possibilities and seeking constructive progress. It offers
104 Capturing an Engaged Audience
a means of resolving issues ideal for the ‘co-production’ approach to science–policy interaction (Section 2.1).
Where it has been practised, it has been shown to work. For example, Ellen McCallie and her co-authors200 describe the successful development
of dialogue events at the London Science Museum’s Dana Centre with the goal of “creating circumstances such that … sustained dialogue between scientists and public participants occurs”. Experience of a longstanding programme of such events showed that the creation of such a ‘safe space’ allowed high levels of interaction and learning, and created circumstances under which people were able to keep an open mind, opinions could shift201, 202.
We might ask, then, given its failings, why the debate format remains ubiquitous? First and foremost it may result from a determination on the part of either party to prevail over their opponents, with debate offering means to achieve this, and to be seen to do so. More pragmatic factors emerged from the Dana Centre experience; dialogue events are more complex and costly to deliver, requiring multiple breakout spaces, a greater number of ‘experts’, and more complex planning and orchestration. They are also difficult to scale up, with the need to achieve effective interaction between public and experts limiting participants to a maximum of 50–100. But probably the most powerful – and insidious – reason is that a debate is a form of contest – and hence entertainment. As a result, it appeals to an audience who may or may not be interested in (or pay attention to) the content. It offers the vicarious pleasure of observing a battle in which fortunes ebb and flow as opponents fight for supremacy. For media seeking to attract viewers or to sell copy, a preference for the debate format is readily understood.
Time for Change? 105
4.4 summary
In this section we have explored the origins and social function of narrative and have seen that it provides a powerful means to communicate a
package of facts and motivations in a unified manner that can ‘feel right’. We have noted that it is capable of conveying truth and untruth with equal force, and hence when employed in the service of science requires attendant care. We have noted that scientists, by and large, are unpractised in the use of narrative and that their communication with lay audiences could benefit from developing that skill. We have noted that in doing so, the construction and delivery of an effective climate science narrative needs to address a variety of factors, particularly that the subject matter is complex, unwelcome, inconvenient and contested. We have noted that in public discourse debate is combative and increases polarization. In contrast the use of dialogue is collaborative and seeks a constructive way forward, even in the light of irresolvable differences. We observe that dialogue provides a mode of discourse consonant with the role of the ‘Honest Broker’ and the co-production approach to science-policy interaction, which is more likely to enable progress in addressing the complex issues posed by climate change (Sections 1.2–1.3).
Chapter
5
how ClimAte ChANge feAtuReS
In THE PuBlIC COnSCIOuSnESS
KeY PoiNtS
There is widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate
change, but not of the urgency and scale of the challenges it presents. This is at odds with the conclusions of climate science.
The discrepancy derives from psychological factors and from
clashes with deeply rooted values and political divisions.
There is a need to reframe the debate on climate change and
climate science in a constructive way that enables progress beyond entrenched positions, which engages both policymakers and the lay public in discourse about the scientific evidence and the appropriate policy responses.
5.1 Opinion Polls: What They Show 108
5.2 Factors Influencing Public Opinion 109
5.3 Multiple Publics 110
108 How Climate Change Features in the Public Consciousness