Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘YourView’ Category

Essay co-authored with Paul Monk.  Cross-posted on the YourView blog

Over half of Australians are dismissive about global warming.  That’s the apparent message from a survey on the ABC website, part of its “I can change your mind about climate” programming airing this evening (Thurs 26th April).

With over 20,000 responses, the survey appears to be unusually large and therefore to provide an excellent view into the Australian mindset.

Some might see these results as confirming that Australians are coming to their senses in rejecting the excesses of the “warmist” school.

Others might see the results as revealing the effects of a sustained campaign of disinformation and manipulation by powerful vested interests and their supporters.

They might also suspect that the poll has simply been gamed by the “denialist” crowd, jumping on and pushing their views in great disproportion to their real numbers.

Gaming the survey would actually have been quite easy.  There seemed to be nothing to stop one person responding numerous times.

But more generally, online polls and surveys are of dubious merit, since their participants are generally self-selected and therefore unrepresentative of the population at large.

That’s why, when The Age runs an online poll, it says “Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.”

Translation: Results are basically worthless.  For entertainment value only.

The ABC’s survey, for this reason, is seriously deficient as a perspective on what Australians really think about climate change.  Indeed it is disturbing that the ABC doesn’t openly admit these shortcomings on the survey site.

The ABC survey does have one merit: it enables participants find out what category they belong to (Dismissive, Alarmist, etc.).  Much like those “What kind of lover are you?” questionnaires found in popular magazines.

The deeper problem here is that uncovering what Australians genuinely think on matters of public moment is actually quite difficult.  Considered as a large group, “the people” doesn’t have vocal chords and can’t speak its thoughts.

Consequently, specially designed processes are needed to elicit this thinking.

Opinion polls, of course, are one common approach.  When properly conducted, they improve on mere online polls in that they at least canvass opinions from fairly representative samples.

But standard opinion polls have their own drawbacks.  The randomly selected participants are typically relatively ill-informed about the issue and aren’t able, in the polling situation, to give the questions any serious thought. Further, the attitudes of the ill-informed are often easily manipulated by the rhetoric doing the rounds at the time of the poll.

At best, these polls provide a statistical snapshot of “off the top of the head” responses.  They don’t ascertain the considered views individuals would have if they were better informed and able to reflect properly.

Much better are the kind of careful surveys conducted by psychologists, such as the 2010 Griffith Climate Survey by Joseph Reser and colleagues.   These by design elicit more thoughtful responses and provide more nuanced insight into people’s perceptions.

That survey found that “less than six per cent of people surveyed were sceptical about climate change”. The stark difference between this finding and that of the ABC poll should give us pause.

However even the Griffith-type surveys are only aggregating what individuals come up with in the 30-60 minutes they spend answering the questions. They don’t provide the collective view, i.e. the view that we would develop as a group if we had the chance to think together about the issue, pooling our perspectives and debating them thoroughly.

The deliberative democracy movement, led in Australia by pioneers such as Lyn Carson and John Dryzek, has long been urging that in a genuine democracy, governments should be guided and constrained by this kind of considered collective view; and that it is best ascertained through a well-designed process in which representative groups of ordinary citizens – “mini-publics” – convene and engage in extended deliberation.

In recent decades, around the world, many such exercises have been conducted.  They reliably show that the considered collective view differs from the results of ordinary opinion polls. They show that under the right circumstances, many people change their minds in informed ways.

Australian democracy would be much healthier if such exercises happened far more frequently and played a much more central role in serious political life.

However there is a prohibitive practical problem with the standard deliberative democracy approach: its exercises are costly and cumbersome, and so happen too infrequently.

One challenge for twenty-first century democratic politics is to design and implement better processes for identifying what we think, not about personalities or political intrigues but about major public issues.

Like the ABC survey, such processes will need to be easily and inexpensively implemented, which means they must be conducted online.

However, like deliberative democracy, they must also able to provide genuine insight into what Australians really think, i.e. the considered collective view.

Reconciling these two demands is far from easy, but the new era of social media is rapidly throwing open new opportunities.

Taking the broadest historical view, the new communication platforms may enable democracy to return, in some key respects, to its Athenian roots – and, indeed, improve on the Athenian model: something that modern representative democracy has always sought to do, but has managed only very imperfectly.

YourView, of course, is our foray into this space.

Read Full Post »

The YourView project is featured in today’s Age newspaper.  It appears in an innovative journalism format called The Zone.  Each “issue” includes lead article, a full interview transcript, a short video segment, and a live Q&A session at midday.  The Q&A is conducted at 12 midday through the comments section at the bottom of the lead article.

Both the lead article and the interview transcript give good overviews of the project.  I particularly recommend the interview because, being longer, it gives a more comprehensive perspective, though in a conversational tone.

Read Full Post »

I have a short paper appearing next month in the Journal of Public Deliberation.  A preview is available here.  Below is a precis.

In its first half, “Cultivating Deliberation for Democracy” discusses the failure of “deliberation technologies” to substantially improve public deliberation in either quantity or quality.   To be sure, new technologies have made possible massive quantities of deliberation of a very public kind (e.g. in public forums such as comments in the New York Times).  However those technologies are not specifically deliberation technologies.  Nothing about them is specifically tailored to support deliberation as opposed to other forms of public conversation.  Meanwhile, deliberation technologies properly so-called – including my own previous efforts – have notably failed to be adopted by the public at large.  I explain this by pointing out the obvious: people don’t like to be “boxed in” by the kinds of constraints typically provided in deliberation technologies.

The second half gives an overview of the YourView project.  YourView is a deliberation technology, but tries to take a rather different approach, aiming to cultivate rather than construct quality public deliberation. YourView provides a forum in which participants can vote and comment on major public issues.  What makes YourView distinctive is that it attempts to determine the “collective wisdom” of the participants.  It does this by calculating, for each participant, a “credibility” score, using data generated through their participant and others’ responses.   In more philosophical terms, YourView attempts to determine the extent to which a participant is exhibiting various “epistemic virtues” such as open-mindedness.  Credibility scores are useful in two ways.  First, they enable YourView to calculate the collective wisdom by weighting contributions by credibility.   Second, they drive more, and more thoughtful, engagement on the site, because high credibility translates to status and (in some ways) power in the YourView forum.

 

Read Full Post »

Two perceptive comments on the state of democracy in Australia, from yesterday’s Age.  First Barry Jones laments the dismal state of political discourse:

I have been heavily involved in politics all my adult life and the current national situation, both in the government and opposition, is a low point, the lowest I can recall – even the dark days of 1955, 1966, 1975 and 1996. It seems to get worse every week.  The 2010 federal election was the worst in my memory because there was no debate about ideas, simply an exchange of slogans and mantras (”Stop the boats!”).  The word ”because”, leading to an attempt at reasoned explanation, seemed to have fallen out of the political lexicon. We observed an infantilisation of debate, for example on refugees and climate change.  There is good reason to expect that the 2013 election will be even more depressing. I have lost count of the number of exchanges I have had with voters in Melbourne streets where they express their dismay to me about the state of politics, on both sides. Some burst into tears.

This reiterates a point in an Age opinion piece back in July:

Tony Abbott’s approach to the carbon tax debate is illustrative of a general collapse in the quality of rational discourse. The proposed carbon tax, a very complex issue, is being attacked with ruthless simplicity, ”Stop a toxic tax, based on a lie.” Is there a second sentence in this argument? Has the word ”because” fallen out of the political vocabulary?

Then James Button, pointing towards an explanation:

Strangely, the information age seems to have made grasping the truth of things harder. The shrinking of the broad base of political parties, their failure to tell stories that inspire and ring true, the increasing lack of penetration of the serious media, the rarity of deep analysis told in a compelling way, the 60-second YouTube videos that portray Julia as robotic or Kevin as a knockabout bloke who swears a bit much, the distrust and distractedness of we the people – they all promote misunderstanding. They are death to an engaged politics.

Neither however has much to say about how to fix or ameloriate the problem.  They seem resigned to it, or perhaps hope that describing the problem will somehow help turn things around.  In this they are like Lindsay Tanner, whose Sideshow was an entertaining book-length treatment of this territory but was also short on solutions (see the tepid final chapter).

Button suggests that “the information age” is to blame, at least partly, for the degradation of politics.  Yet it is also the only place where countervailing forces are likely to arise.  And indeed we are seeing a sudden proliferation of new forms of democratic engagement (Duval, Next Generation Democracy; Shirky, Here Comes Everybody).

Our own fledgling effort in this area, YourView, is aimed at (among other things) helping interested citizens to “grasp the truth of things” by making the key arguments on major public issues easily accessible, allowing citizens to express their view, and identifying the “wisdom of the crowd.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts