Public Dialogue Review: Lessons from Research Councils' Public Dialogues

This presentation outlines the work of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) to engage members of the United Kingdom (UK) public in science. Acknowledging that, in a time of financial cuts across government, the case for dialogue has become harder to make, presenter Simon Burall highlights clear benefits for research councils in opening up and hearing citizen voice as part of wider decision-making processes. Burall delivered it at the Wellcome Fourth International Public Engagement Workshop, October 3 2012.

As outlined here, the 6 dialogues focused on topics such as nanotechnology, stem cell research, and energy research. Based on these experiences, and taking a further 8 consultations into account, organisers produced 2 documents - Public Dialogue Review and a resource called Doing Public Dialogue - which document public attitudes to science, technology, and research.

The public's most common responses were:

• Conditional support for the area of research being discussed;
• Desire to see equitable distribution of both potential benefits and potential risks;
• Embrace of business participation in the research process. ("However, society as a whole rather than business should set public research agendas");
• Desire to see research focused on clearly articulated societal needs;
• Preference for targeting incremental solutions to societal challenges;
• Valuing "naturalness", or scepticism of the value of high-tech solutions to complex social and environmental problems;
• Focus on value for money (both in terms of the research and the envisaged applications of research); and
• Anticipatory regulation of emerging technologies should be considered simultaneously with research and innovation of these technologies.

Broadly speaking, these public dialogues have benefited research councils in 6 different ways:

1. Better understanding of public attitudes relating to an emerging area of research;
2. Better understanding of members of the public as potential end-users or consumers of research;
3. Researchers stimulated to reflect on the social implications of their research;
4. Promotion of stronger stakeholder engagement with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society;
5. Contribution to wider public debate about emerging research and technologies; and
6. Ability to directly inform research council thinking, strategy, and decision making.

According to Burall, there are 5 organisational factors that are critical to the dialogues' contribution to the work of research councils. Successful public dialogues:

1. Devote sufficient time to upfront planning of the dialogue - this includes clarifying the purpose and ensuring that timing is appropriate for feeding into specific decisions.
2. Ensure that the dialogue has visible and active high-level support from senior managers within the research councils and also relevant senior researchers.
3. Be there - the most powerful impact from dialogues is on those individuals who participate in (or at least observe) the dialogues.
4. Provide appropriate oversight - the role of advisers from within research councils and external stakeholders is critical to steering a successful dialogue and is an important mechanism to link the dialogue into relevant Council processes and external agendas.
5. Ensure there is organisational capacity to learn from the dialogue - this could mean staff with knowledge and experience of dialogue and possibly having societal issue advisory groups.

He concludes that research councils should:

• Reflect on how new programmes relate to the 8 cross-cutting public concerns noted above.
• Ensure that the 5 key organisational factors identified above are given proper weight before dialogue is commissioned. "Dialogues will be more likely to contribute substantive value to research if they are tailored to specific research areas or programmes; if they are built into the early development of the programme; and if care is taken to ensure involvement of key stakeholders (including from the research community) in the design, delivery, and oversight of the dialogue. This may mean that the model moves towards one in which greater attention is given upfront to increasing buy-in to dialogue from key stakeholders. Dialogue will necessarily look different in different areas. With greater investment in framing and proportionately reduced investment in delivery, therefore, we may see a further diversification of types of dialogue."
• Ensure that connections are made between the dialogue and organisational structures that can reflect on the outcome of the dialogues and that are able to interpret the findings in ways that are meaningful to decision makers. "Mechanisms for organisational learning are vital...[to help] build capacity, develop public dialogue strategy, reflect on findings, and encourage action in response to the dialogues.