Academic Engagement in Public and Political Discourse

Transcription

1 Academic Engagement in Public and Political Discourse The 2015 Michigan Meeting, May Project Directors: 1. Andrew Hoffman, Director, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment 2. Mark Barteau, Director, Energy Institute, School of Engineering 3. Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Science Center, School of Public Health 4. Shelie Miller, School of Natural Resources and Environment 5. Don Scavia, Director, Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, School of Engineering and School of Natural Resources and Environment Steering Committee: 6. Gregg Crane, Director, Program in the Environment, Department of English 7. Paul N. Edwards, School of Information 8. Sharon Glotzer, School of Engineering 9. Lianne Lefsrud, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment 10. Joy Rohde, Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy 11. David Uhlmann, Director, Environmental Law and Policy Program, Law School June 12, 2014

2 ABSTRACT The University of Michigan addresses complex problems facing our world by encouraging collaboration among a diverse group of the world s brightest students and faculty, offering academic rigor to our students both in the classroom and through real-world experiences, and creating a culture that focuses on the public good and changing the world with bold new ideas. On this latter point, a question is emerging about the role of public universities within society. Do public universities have a unique responsibility to become engaged within the discussions of the global challenges that are relevant to society, such as sustainability, health care, gun control, fiscal policy, international affair, etc.? Assuming that academic scholars have such a responsibility, how does one appropriately engage? How do scholars engage in a world in which knowledge is becoming democratized through social media and the proliferation of knowledge sources (both credible and biased) clouds public debate? In today s world of public and political discourse, academic scholars cannot control their message and must therefore develop new rules of engagement that allow for more nuanced and fluid delivery of content. This 2015 Michigan Meeting is a culmination of an 18 month dialogue on an issue of interdisciplinary and global importance: the engagement of the academy in creating informed decisionmaking with the public and political realms. In particular, we are interested in stimulating a dialogue on faculty attitudes and best practices that cover a span of external engagement activities, including but not limited to: Congressional testimony, assistance to government agencies, board service, public presentations, media interviews, K-12 education, blogging, editorial writing, social media and political activism -- all activities that lie outside the standard notions of scholarly pursuits. This meeting builds upon two preliminary activities that provide its foundation: (1) A survey of attitudes among University of Michigan faculty around academic engagement in public and political discussion that was conducted in the fall of 2013; (2) A series of three brownbag lunches for faculty to discuss their experiences, desires, and/or fears in engaging in public and political discussion were conducted in the winter of With these preliminary activities completed, we are now convening a national conference on the role and rules of engagement for academics to enter public and political discussion. This meeting is sponsored, in large part, by the University of Michigan s Rackham Graduate School, with supplemental support from the four sponsoring Institutes of this initiative (Erb, Graham, Energy and Risk Science). The team organizing this meeting is interdisciplinary, representing the following UM schools and departments: The School of Engineering, The Ross School of Business, The School of Natural Resources and Environment, The School of Public Health, The Department of English, The Program in the Environment, The School of Information, The Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, and Law School as well as the following Institutes: The Erb Institute, the Graham Institute, the Michigan Energy Institute, the Risk Science Center, the Program in the Environment and Environmental Law and Policy Program. The issues we are exploring hold great import for the faculty at the University of Michigan and the academy more generally. Emphasizing their importance, the National Academies of Sciences has already organized two Sackler Colloquia on The Science of Science Communication (NAS 2012, 2013) and the Alred P. Sloan Foundation (2013) has established Public Understanding of Science, Technology & Economics as one of its major program areas. These and other related activities would dovetail with our efforts. 2

3 PROPOSAL A recent study in Environmental Research Letters found that, of the more than 4,000 academic papers published between 1991 and 2011, 97.1% agreed that climate change is occurring and is anthropogenic (Cook et al. 2013). This supports numerous other studies showing similarly conclusive results (e.g., Oreskes 2004). And yet the most recent surveys of public attitudes on climate change show that only 65% of American adults believe that there is solid evidence that temperatures on earth have increased during the past four decades (Borick and Rabe 2012), and the number of Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening declined from 47% to 39% between 2008 and 2011 (Ding et al. 2011). More importantly, there is a sharp partisan divide on this issue with implications for our political discourse at the state and national level; the latest surveys showing 81% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans believe there is solid evidence of global warming (Borick and Rabe, 2012). Climate change is but one example of a startling disconnect between the consensus of the scientific community and the disparate views of the broader public. In our increasingly technological world, issues like nanotechnology, stem-cell research, nuclear power, climate change, vaccines and autism, genetically modified organisms, and endocrine disruption require thoughtful and informed debate but instead have been caught up the so-called culture wars, generating more heat than light. The failure to thoughtfully address such important issues is a cause for concern and attention. We need a more socially literate scientific community, a more scientifically literate public and a more scientifically informed political debate. But what are the pros and cons of academic engagement in the process of creating this change? Exploring those trade-offs is the goal of this initiative. There are numerous explanations for the kinds of disconnects in both public and political discussions that we describe. These include: Motivated reasoning. People s pre-existing beliefs about certain hotly contested issues will lead them to find supportive evidence of those beliefs (Kahan 2010). Political partisanship. Many issues fall along political party lines, where conservatives and liberals differ sharply. For example, the percentage of conservatives and Republicans who believe that the effects of global warming have already begun to happen declined from roughly 50% in 2001 to about 30% in 2010, while the corresponding percentage of liberals and Democrats increased from roughly 60% in 2001 to about 70% in 2010 (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Divided and multiple interests. People are balancing attention to competing and conflicting interests. Some dominate their attention as more salient, such as the great recession, that leads people away from any consideration that may further slow the economy. Cultural sources of resistance. Debates over scientific issues (and their solutions) invoke deeper cultural issues around distrust of science, fear of increasing government, and others (Hoffman 2012a). Political power. There are organizations whose economic and political interests are threatened by the conclusions of scientific research and have engaged in active efforts to confuse the public (Oreskes and Conway 2010). One explanation that requires more direct attention is the extent to which the academic and scientific communities have effectively explained the state and gravity of the scientific research. Academic scholars are often not trained, nor are they given the proper incentives, to do this kind of work. Many academics believe the public is uninformed about science and therefore prone to errors in judgment and policy preferences, but do not see their role as an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal 3

4 benefits for investing in these activities (Besley and Nisbet 2011: 644). Should this change? Should academics engage in public and political discussion? If so, what is the proper role that the academic scientist should play in public and policy discussion? Roger Pielke, Jr. (2007) describes four archetypal roles. The first is the Honest Broker, one who provides as much information as possible on a particular topic and allows policy makers and the public to reduce the scope (i.e., make a decision). The Honest Broker expand[s] the scope of choice available to decision-makers and explicitly integrate[s] scientific knowledge with stakeholder concerns in the form of alternative possible courses of action. Pielke differentiates this role from those of the Pure Scientist who focuses on research with no consideration for its use or utility (a role which he states is more frequently found in myth than practice), the Issue Advocate who focuses on the implications of research for a particular political agenda and tends to reduce the scope of available choice, and the Science Arbiter who will answer questions from decision makers to clarify research (e.g., the National Academies). This four-part classification is accepted by some, contested by others and clearly worthy of spirited discussion, the starting point for which could be to ask whether this taxonomy is accurate. This question, and the host of related questions that it generates, are critical for reasons that are both internal and external to the academy. Internally, there are new and emerging challenges to the way we create and disseminate knowledge. MOOCs, open access journals, and social media are, in the words of former UM Provost Phil Hanlon, democratizing knowledge. Effective integration of faculty into public and political discourse can create new avenues for case-based and active learning opportunities, which are seen as critical for educating the next generation of students (Tushman 2003). Externally, we live in an age when scientific issues permeate our social, economic, and political culture. Yet, state legislatures are cutting funding to higher education, oftentimes motivated by a professed lack of appreciation for the value that the academy provides to society (e.g., Strauss 2013) and both the public and our elected officials remain uneducated about science and the scientific process. Further, there is a growing distortion of the research agenda by funding sources with specific interests. Consequently, the scholarly community must adopt new practices and processes of engagement to assure that its work is heard above the fray. Michigan Meeting Academic Engagement in Public and Political Discourse We are organizing a national conference on the roles and rules of engagement for academics entering public and political debates. With data collected from the survey (see Table 1 for a sample of results) and the brownbag lunch discussions (see Table 2 for brownbag themes), we are organizing a Michigan Meeting at the University of Michigan that seeks to analyze the roles that academics can and should play within public and political discussion, and importantly, the opportunities, hazards and best practices for doing so (Hoffman 2013). Table 1 Sample Results from Fall 2013 Survey of 330 University of Michigan Faculty 90% of respondents agree or strongly agree that public engagement informs public discussions and 86% agree or strongly agree that this is the role of academics. 66% believe that external engagement is complementary to their academic research, though 56% believe this activity is not valued by tenure committees. Only 35% believe it is becoming increasingly valued by the academy and 72% believe that the U-M should set a tone that supports engagement. 34% believe this activity is dangerous as it is often misquoted and 41% believe it is time consuming and distracting. 4

5 Over 62% of respondents give media interviews, 59% provide assistance to government agencies and 59% give talks or presentations to the general public. 39% do not, and never will, use Twitter for academic/professional work (35% say the same for Facebook), though 58% use Twitter and Facebook for personal use. Within this data, we found some variance by age, rank, stage of career and school/department/discipline, but no variance by gender. Table 2 Brownbag Lunch Themes 1. Friday January 24, Michigan League, Room D (3rd floor), 12:00-1:30pm What do we mean by public and political engagement? In this first of 3 brownbag lunches for winter 2014, we will discuss the various forms of engagement that our faculty conduct; what are considered appropriate forms of engagement; where are the lines between being a content provider and being a political advocate; and how these fit with the types of scholarly engagement advocated by others (such as Roger Pielke Jr. s Honest Broker, or Donald Stoke s Pasteur s Quadrant). 2. Tuesday February 18, Johnson Rooms, North Campus, 12:00-1:30pm How does one pursue an academic career that includes public and political engagement? In this second of 3 brownbag lunches, we explore the risks and opportunities (both internal and external). How do they differ by stage of career or discipline? What are the challenges of engagement, including personal, career, and political ones, and what are the options for meeting them? How can one navigate the multiple roles that are part of the engagement process? 3. Wednesday March 26, Michigan League, Michigan Room (2nd floor), 12:00-1:30pm What should be the role of academics in public and political discourse? In the third of 3 brownbag lunches, we will ask normative questions about the rules of academia, the needs of society, what to do if they do not mesh, and how can we promote more successful engagement in public discourse. In an increasingly complex and scientifically challenging world, how should we engage the public and political process? What are the rules of tenure, formal and informal, and how should they change and how should they stay the same? How should young scholars manage their careers in ways that may differ from those of their more senior colleagues? The Michigan Meeting will amplify and organize the themes and data that the survey and brownbag lunches expose, including: Should academics engage in public and political discussion? Why or why not? What are the obstacles or incentives, hazards or opportunities to engaging in public and political discussion? What additional support could/should a university provide in this? What activities do faculty already engage in, such as blogs, editorials, public speaking, government agency interactions, formal government advice, informal government and stakeholder engagements, and Congressional testimony? How could this become a virtuous circle for our research? Format This will be a three day conference, running May 13-15, beginning and ending at noon. There will be 2 dinners, 2 breakfasts and 2 lunches for 150 attendees. The evening of the second day will be devoted to a public conference that is open to the entire University of Michigan community. We are inviting up to 20 external speakers from the academic, political and advocacy communities to join us, 5

6 and solicit the services of a professional moderator. Potential invitees include speakers in multiple categories: (1) Scholars who study the role of science in public discourse; (2) Scholars who have actively entered the public debate; (3) Scholars who have become more activist in their orientation; (4) Academics and practitioners who promote the engagement of scientists in public and political discourse; (5) Activists who apply science in public and political discourse; (6) Representatives from the science community that care about these issues; (7) Scholars who have entered the political realms; (8) Writers who translate science for the public. Sessions will alternate between full conference plenary sessions and small breakout groups. University of Michigan doctoral and postdoctoral students will be commissioned to take notes and write up a conference summary document that could be both used for (1) a guidance document for academic public engagement and (2) a published article, or series of articles, on the topic. We plan to video record the meeting so that sessions can be posted on the University s website for further dissemination. Conclusion Many excellent natural and social scientists are poor communicators who lack the skills, time, or inclination to play the role of educator to the general public and our political leaders, especially when faced with such apparent lack of interest or receptivity on the part of the broader public. Further, many academics view this role as outside their domain of responsibilities (Besley and Nisbet 2013). As the prevailing logic goes, scientists and other academics develop data, models, and conclusions and expect the public and our politicians to accept their conclusions because their methods and their interests are established within their communities and should not be questioned. But knowledge is never socially or politically inert, particularly when it results in changes in the way people live their lives, and academics have a duty to both recognize its impact on society and communicate that impact to those who must live with the consequences (Hoffman 2012b). The poor state of the public and political discussion on a range of scientific issues is, in part, the responsibility of the academic community. To meet the challenges facing both the scientific community and society, we must improve science communication (Fischoff 1995; Slovic 1987) and enhance scientists' own reflection on the political and social implications of scientific expertise. Through this effort we hope to contribute to meeting these challenges. 6

7 References Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2013) Public Understanding of Science, Technology & Economics, Besley, J. and M. Nisbet How Scientists View the Public, the Media and the Political Process, Public Understanding of Science, 22(6): Borick, C., and B. Rabe Continued Rebound in American Belief in Climate Change: Spring 2012 NSAPOCC Findings. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature. Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013). doi: / /8/2/ Ding, D., E. Maibach, X. Zhao, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz Support for Climate Policy and Societal Action Are Linked to Perceptions about Scientific Agreement. Nature Climate Change 1: Fischhoff, B Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process. Risk Analysis 15 (2): Hoffman, A. 2012a. Climate Science as Culture War. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10 (4): Hoffman, A. 2012b. Warm Spring Weather and Global Warming: If Scientists Could Only Be So Persuasive. Christian Science Monitor, March 21. Hoffman, A Academic Engagement in Public and Political Discourse: Establishing the Rules of the Game, Journal of Sustainability, forthcoming Kahan, D Fixing the Communications Failure. Nature 463 (21): McCright, A., and R. Dunlap The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public s Views of Global Warming, , The Sociological Quarterly 52: National Academies of Science The Science of Science Communication I, National Academies of Science The Science of Science Communication II, Oreskes, N The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306 (5702): Oreskes, N., and E. Conway Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Pielke, R The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Slovic, P Perception of Risk. Science 236 (4799): Strauss, V N.C. Governor Attacks Higher Ed, Proposes Funding Colleges by Graduates Jobs, Washington Post, February 7. Tushman, M OMT Distinguished Scholar Lecture, Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 4 August. 7