Deliberative Public Comment (PESTI Project: Public Engagement with Science, Technology and Innovation Policy)
Moving beyond collecting opinions to create processes for thinking, dialogue and connection to policy.
Science, technology and innovation policy should not be determined by experts and government alone. Yet conventional public-comment systems often privilege people who can read technical documents and submit a written response.
Through PESTI—Public Engagement with Science, Technology and Innovation Policy—we designed and evaluated “deliberative public comment”: a process through which citizens receive information, speak with others, consider relationships to their own lives and values, and form an opinion.
A deliberative public-comment process
- Accessible information — Present policy issues and options without relying only on technical language.
- Individual reflection — Record first impressions, interests and questions.
- Dialogue across difference — Encounter different experiences and values.
- Deliberation — Consider benefits, risks, equity and future generations.
- Opinion formation — Express conditions, concerns and alternatives, not only support or opposition.
- Connection and feedback — Explain how contributions were considered and report back to participants.
The lab’s role
Kei Kano and collaborators contributed to process design, facilitation, audience-diversity evaluation, analysis of public views, application to local policy and publication of findings.
The purpose was not simply to increase the number of participants. We examined whether people with differing levels of engagement with science and policy were included and whether diversity of views was retained.
Lessons from the research
- “Public opinion” is plural and may develop through information and dialogue.
- Participation is shaped by topic, recruitment, place, timing, language and facilitation.
- Collecting views without a response from policymakers can undermine trust.
- Expert knowledge and lived knowledge should be treated as different resources for judgement, not as opposites.
- The legitimacy of a process should be evaluated with attention to people who did not participate.
Connection to current work
The PESTI experience informs our current research on engagement with people of differing levels of interest, inclusive science communication, RRI for educational AI, and collaboration between universities and communities.
Related papers
Goto, T., Kudo, M., & Kano, K. (2015). パブリックエンゲージメント参加者層の多様性評価手法の探索 [Exploring methods for evaluating the diversity of public-engagement participants]. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 17, 3–19. DOI / official page
Maenami, H., Yoshizawa, G., & Kano, K. (2016). 「対話型パブリックコメント」の地域政策への適用 [Applying deliberative public comment to local policy]. Japan Association of Regional Policy Research, 16, 38–47. DOI / official page
Kano, K., Kudo, M., Yoshizawa, G., et al. (2019). How science, technology and innovation can be placed in broader visions—Public opinions from inclusive public engagement activities. Journal of Science Communication, 18(3), Article A02. DOI / official page