Linda Billings, Ph.D.

Communications Coordinator

NASA Astrobiology Program

Washington, DC

*Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group*

*September 18, 2008*

***Thinking strategically about communication in planning for Mars
Sample Return:***

***considering public participation***

Thinking strategically about communication entails thinking through the
purpose of our communications -- what we are communicating about, who we
are communicating with, and why...as well as where and when and how.
Conceived strategically, communication is an integral element of the
overall work of a program or organization. The word "strategic" means
"important or essential in relation to a plan of action...highly
important to an intended objective." Strategic communication is "the art
of presenting ideas clearly, concisely, persuasively, and systematically
in a timely manner to the right people." This approach to communication
entails "maximizing available resources and positioning your
organization to be proactive instead of reactive...advancing your
mission and actualizing your vision."^1^

Strategic communication planning for NASA's Astrobiology Program is
intended to promote the widest possible dissemination of timely and
useful information about scientific discoveries, technology development,
new knowledge, and greater understanding produced in our fields. It also
has the aim of building and sustaining identity and community in an
extremely multidisciplinary and rapidly evolving field of study.

This strategic approach establishes that communication is an integral
element of Program planning and activities and a function of fundamental
importance to this scientific enterprise. Communications must be timely,
accurate, clear, comprehensive, and responsive to the needs of an array
of audiences. Everyone in the astrobiology community has a role in
explaining why our research is useful, relevant, and worthy of public
funding. NASA's Planetary Protection Program also employs this strategic
approach to communication. The Mars Exploration Program can benefit from
employing this approach as well, particularly in relation to the
planning and execution of Mars sample return.

*What is communication? And why should space scientists care?*

In thinking strategically about communication, it is useful to consider
what "communication" is.

The conventional transmission model of communication -- also known as
the "bullet" or cognitive-deficit model -- is a top-down, one-way model
that characterizes communication as a means of relaying information from
informed senders to uninformed receivers. In the cognitive-deficit model
of science communication, derived from the transmission model,
successful communication occurs when informed scientists transmit
information to uninformed audiences.

By the transmission or cognitive-deficit model, the central aim of
communication is persuasion. This approach to communication has long
been popular in the business of strategic communications. It makes a
good match with the classical aim of rhetoric, which is persuasion. If
persuasion is your desired end, then decide whom you want to persuade
and what you want to persuade them of, and develop your strategy
accordingly. Many communication researchers have deemed this one-way
model flawed, limited, and outdated. Its limitations make it easy to use
toward the ends of misrepresentation and manipulation. See, for
instance, Christopher Simpson's 1994 book, The Science of Coercion,
about "Communication Research and Psychological Warfare" during the Cold
War.

The construction of "public understanding of science" as a "problem" in
the mid-20^th^ century was an outgrowth of the modeling of science
communication as a cognitive-deficit problem.

The idea that a significant portion of the citizenry is ignorant about
science -- scientifically illiterate -- is persistent in the cultural
environment.

Measures of scientific literacy have generally been designed to
determine whether non-scientists possess scientific knowledge that
scientists believe they should possess. Non-scientists may not agree
with scientists on what they need to know about science.

The "PUS" approach to science communication rests on the assumption that
public understanding will bring public support. Research has shown that
this is not a safe assumption. A better understanding of science may
lead a citizen to be more supportive of science, but it may just as
likely lead to a more skeptical or critical attitude toward science.
Nonetheless, publicly funded scientists are obligated to inform the
public about the work that they do.

An outgrowth of the cognitive-deficit model of science communication is
the strategy of debunking, which is commonly employed in communication
between scientists and non-scientists. Debunking is a negative strategy,
however. It might seem to be effective in the short term, but it is not
a productive long-term strategy for communicating about science.

An alternative to debunking is interactive communication. An
interactive, dialogic, participatory model characterizes communication
as a two-way, continual process. Thinking about communication as a
dialogue conveys the idea that beyond persuasion, another, broader, aim
is understanding. Whom do you want to understand your communication,
what do you want them to understand, and why?

This conception of science communication as an ongoing, interactive
process is the model of choice for the Astrobiology and Planetary
Protection programs -- communication occurring in specific cultural
contexts, serving functional and symbolic ends, involving complex
networks of interacting exchanges, and promoting public dialogue. By
this model, communication is an open, ongoing, non-hierarchal, and
egalitarian process.

The theory of communication as ritual^2^ gives weight to this
participatory model. The ritual theory posits that communication is
enacted not simply to convey information but to maintain culture over
time. That is, communication is the way we construct and share meanings
and values, belief systems and world views.

In this conception, communication serves social and symbolic as well as
practical purposes. While a scientist is reporting or explaining or
responding in her communications, she is also engaging in the social
action of sustaining not only her own credibility and authority but also
the credibility and authority of other scientists, and science itself.
Such communications can reinforce, or shatter, long-standing stereotypes
of scientists. Other cultural or symbolic functions of communication are
to make connections with other people, or to reinforce a particular
world view. In thinking strategically about communication, it is useful
to consider that not everyone interprets reality according to the
particular template called the scientific world view**.**

*What is participatory communication?*

The interactive or dialogic model of communication is a participatory
model. In a democracy, citizens may participate in public policy making.
Taxpayers may have a say in public spending decisions. Participation
requires communication, and a participatory model of communication is a
model well suited to democracy.

The concept of participatory communication, particularly the idea of
participatory communication for social change, arises out of research in
development communication, from the work of scholars and practitioners
concerned with giving voice to underrepresented groups in public
decision making.^3^

A participatory model characterizes communication as ongoing,
interactive, open-ended, and interactive. Participatory communication
values expert and "local" knowledge, acknowledges and validated
different world views, and emphasizes the process of communication over
its outcome. If the process is fair and open and accepted by all
participants, then its outcome will be more likely to be accepted by all
participants.

Public participation in policy making goes beyond public comment, which
government agencies tend to solicit as required by law --- primarily the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Participatory communication in
policy making is intended to "democratize" expertise by clearly defining
the role of scientific and technical communications in decision making
while at the same time accommodating and validating "local" as well as
expert knowledge. Participatory communication in science and technology
policy making serves the purpose of ensuring that citizens are informed
about what policy makers are doing and that policy makers are informed
about citizens' concerns.

Participatory communication is especially important in science and
technology policy making because scientific and technical claims are
subject to interpretation, risk and uncertainty are prominent elements
of the policy decision making process, and public perceptions of science
and risk tend to differ from expert assessments. Public participation in
policy making is described and provided for in various ways, including
public engagement, public involvement, consensus decision making, policy
dialogue, and citizen advisory boards. Even when codified in policy,
however, the label of "participation" is not in itself adequate to
actually provide for participation. Conceptions of public involvement
and public engagement vary widely in theory and in practice.

The aim of participatory communication in policy making is generally to
reach consensus. Hearings, notice and comment procedures, and advisory
committees are established mechanisms for public input in government
decision making. These conventional public-involvement processes
typically emphasize "agencycentric, command and control activities,"
however, and "have done little to...involve citizens meaningfully."^4^
More innovative and effective methods for involving the public in policy
decision making have been developed and demonstrated.^5^ In public
decision making processes it is often the case that public involvement,
engagement, or participation is called for primarily to obtain "buy-in"
-- that is, to persuade citizens of choices and decisions that policy
makers have already made. It is important to consider that giving lip
service to the idea of public participation without putting the idea
into practice is a betrayal of the public trust. Trust is difficult to
obtain, easy to lose, and very hard to regain.

Public engagement and public involvement, terms employed by government
agencies to convey the intent of broader communication with the public
toward improving public understanding of science, describe approaches to
facilitating public participation.^6^ In theory, these approaches are
meant to engage and involve the public in dialogue with officials and
experts. But in operation, they are often not clearly distinguishable
from conventional public affairs operations, based on the one-way
transmission model of communication and intended to build public
support. While giving lip service to opening doors for broader
communication with a wider public, government agencies often appear to
have difficulties with putting participatory communication into
practice. This difficulty is likely due to the requirement of power
sharing imposed by a participatory approach to communication.^7^

Consultation is the traditional method of public involvement in decision
making, in which a policy making body gathers information from citizens
and provides feedback. In consultation, however, power is not shared,
and negotiation is not accommodated. The policy making body retains
ultimate decision making authority, using an \"inform and educate,"
\"command and control\" approach to communicating with the public. Some
communication researchers refer to this approach as the "3-I model":
invite, inform, ignore.

According to Public Agenda, a public opinion research organization^8^,
public participation in government "has been eroding as cynicism and
mistrust arise." Policy making tends to involve technical debates among
experts and special interests, with citizens left out of the process.
True public engagement, in Public Agenda's view, requires "diversity
among participants \[and\] understanding different perspectives and
exchanging points of view."

In her critique of "the culture of critique," the standard rhetorical
style of academic communications, linguist Deborah Tannen observes that
"our spirits are corroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting
contention," pushing us to "approach public dialogue\...as if it were a
fight." (p. 3) "War metaphors pervade our talk and shape our thinking."
(p. 4)

Email and the Internet can aggravate aggression in communication because
they enable anonymous and thus unaccountable one-way critique.

For successful communication and engagement, try expanding frames of
reference, foregoing the debate format, avoiding demonization, and
focusing less on rights and more on needs and interests.

Dialogue is a mode of communication that enables participants to develop
an awareness of others. It originates in the public sphere and is an
outcome of joint action. A dialogic approach to public decision making
provides an opportunity to build and maintain public trust, contingent
on continued commitment to sustaining dialogue.

Policy dialogues, sometimes described as policy roundtables or issue
workshops, are a constructive approach to expanding public
participation. These dialogues involve carefully planned deliberative
meetings, designed to bring together individuals and groups with a
diversity of interests.

Dialogue is not a magic, "yellow brick road" to effective public
participation and participatory communication. It does not, in itself,
guarantee agreement and conflict resolution. Even public dialogues may
privilege certain types of individuals and communication styles, not to
mention the most powerful interest groups. Incorporating citizen
participation into public decision making can be time-consuming and
expensive, and official decision makers must be willing to share power
and authority with citizen participants and use their input.

Scholars and government officials promote engagement of the public in
decision making as a means of building trust in government. But public
engagement is not a guaranteed path to trust (Petts, 2008). The
development of trust depends on who is engaged in decision making, how
open communications are and how they are framed, and many other factors.
The bottom line is that engaging the public in decision making dialogue
is only one step toward building and sustaining public trust.

The conventional \"decide, announce, defend\" approach to public
decision making does not adequately accommodate citizens' interests and
concerns. Participatory decision making may be messy, time consuming,
expensive and even contentious. But for democratic governance, it may be
necessary.

The space science community will benefit from considering the role,
function, and purpose of public participation in Mars sample return
planning. It is important, first, to define the aim of communications
with public audiences about Mars sample return. Is the intent to inform
citizens about MSR science goals and objectives? Or is the intent to
persuade citizens to support an MSR mission? Is the aim to manage
communications, or to control them? Is the aim to work with journalists
as partners in getting the word out, or is it to use them as tools in
achieving your goal?

*Conclusions*

The premise of public participation in official decision making "is that
control over an action should rest with the people who will bear the
major force of its consequences\.... There is no magic formula for
injecting participation into projects or communities\...it must come
from within.\"^9^

Political theorist Benjamin Barber (1984) describes participatory
politics as "a never-ending process of deliberation, decision, and
action." It is possible that widespread implementation of participatory
communication in public policy making could help to democratize science
and technology policy making and revivify civic life.

The participatory communication model itself has its flaws. It does not,
for instance, address the role of people who cannot, or choose not to,
participate. The very concept of participatory communication is not
clearly defined.

Nonetheless, the benefits of applying the participatory communication
model in science and technology policy making are clear. Public
participation in decision making is democratic. It can minimize
conflict, empower citizens, temper the influence of powerful interest
groups, and help to build government-citizen partnerships.

**Notes**

1.This definition comes from the SPIN Project,
[http://www.spinproject.org](http://www.spinproject.org/). The SPIN
Project is dedicated to working with nonprofit groups on developing and
deploying communication strategies for social change.

2\. See Carey, 1989.

3\. Paulo Freire, a scholar and practitioner, is perhaps the best known
of this group of communication researchers. For further information on
Freire's work, see
[www.unomaha.edu/\~pto/paulo.htm](http://www.unomaha.edu/~pto/paulo.htm).

4\. See Walker et al, 2003.

5\. See Beierle, 1998.

6\. See Gregory and Miller, 2002.

7\. Some federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture and
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, have public
participation policies in place to promote and enable a role for
citizens in regulatory and other decision making processes. A review of
agencies' records of their execution of these policies is a topic beyond
the scope of this paper. NASA does not have a public participation
policy. NASA has procedural requirements (NPR 8580.1, expiring Nov. 26,
2008) in place for public involvement in NEPA processes: An analysis of
NASA's application of these procedural requirements is beyond the scope
of this paper. A few cases can be mentioned: 1) In the 1980s,
environmental and other anti-nuclear groups protested and ultimately
filed suit to stop the launch of NASA's nuclear-powered Galileo and
Cassini spacecraft to Jupiter and Saturn, claiming the agency had paid
insufficient attention to environmental risks; 2) In 2004, NASA
announced its intent to conduct a NEPA assessment for its Jupiter Icy
Moons Orbiter mission, designed to use a larger-scale nuclear power
system to be developed by Project Prometheus (now defunct). Anticipating
possible public resistance, NASA hired the Keystone Center to provide
advice on risk communication in relation to Project Prometheus; 3) In
2003, a federal judge ruled against NASA in a suit brought against the
agency by environmentalists and native Hawaiians over its plans for a
new telescope construction project at the Mauna Kea Observatory in
Hawaii. The judge concluded that NASA had not given sufficient
consideration to public concerns in its environmental impact assessment
and directed the agency to prepare a full-blown environmental impact
statement for the project before proceeding with any work.

8\. See [www.publicagenda.org](http://www.publicagenda.org/).

9\. See Servaes, 1998.

**Selected references**

Barber, Benjamin (1984). *Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics in a
New Age*. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum, & Steve Miller (2007). What can we learn
from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the
agenda. *Public Understanding of Science* 16, 79-95.

Beierle, T. C. (1998). Public Participation in Environmental Decisions:
An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals. Discussion Paper 99-06.
Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap
between science and the public. *Public Understanding of Science* 10,
99-113.

Borchelt, Rick E. (2001). Communicating the Future. *Science
Communication* 23(2): 194-211.

Carey, James W. (1989). *Communication as culture: essays on media and
society*. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Charnley, Gail (2000). *Democratic Science: Enhancing the Role of
Science in Stakeholder-Based Risk Management Decisionmaking.*
Washington, D.C.: American Industrial Health Council and American
Chemistry Council.

Collins, Harry and Trevor Pinch (1993). *The Golem: What Everyone Should
Know About Science.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Covello, Vincent T. & Allen, Frederick (1988). *Seven Cardinal Rules of
Risk Communication*. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy Analysis, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA Public Participation Policy Review Group, Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation (2000). *Engaging the American People: A Review
of EPA's Public Participation Policy and Regulations with
Recommendations for Action* (EPA-240-R-00-005. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Freire, Paulo (1998). *The Paulo Freire Reader*. (ed. A. M. Araujo
Freire and D. Macedo). New York: Continuum.

Gans, Herbert J. (1980). *Deciding What's News.* New York: Random House.

Habermas, Jurgen (1989). *The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of the Bourgeois Society.* Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Hammond, S.C., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K.N. (2003). The problematics of
dialogue and power. *Communications Yearbook 27*, 125-157.

NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality (2003).
*Modernizing NEPA Implementation.* Washington, D.C.: Council on
Environmental Quality.
Http:://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/report/totaldoc.html#executive.

Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Philip D. Zelikov and David C. King , eds. (1997).
*Why People Don't Trust Government*. Cambridge, London: Harvard
University Press.

Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (2001). *Stakeholder
Involvement and Public Participation at the U.S. EPA*
(EPA-100-R-00-040). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

Office of Science, Dept. of Energy; and National Institute of Standards
and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce (2002). Communicating the
Future: Best Practices for Communication of Science and Technology to
the Public. Conference Proceedings, March 6-8, 2002, Gaithersburg, MD.

Petts, Judith (2008). Public engagement to build trust: false hopes?
*Journal of Risk Research* 11(6): 821-835.

Schudson, Michael (2003). *The Sociology of News.* New York: W.W.
Norton.

Servaes, Jan, Jacobson, Thomas L. & White, Shirley A. (eds.) (1996).
*Participatory Communication for Social Change.* New Delhi, Thousand
Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

Shore, William (1998). *Public Participation: Where It Stands; Where It
Should Be Going*. Institute of Public Administration Report, Spring.
[Http://www.theipa.org](http://www.theipa.org/).

Simpson, Christopher (1994) The Science of Coercion: Communication
Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Tannen, Deborah (1998). *The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to
Dialogue*. Random House, NY.

U.S. Department of Energy, Environment, Safety and Health, Office of
NEPA Policy and Assistance (2d ed., 1998). *Effective Public
Participation under the National Environmental Policy Act.* Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

**Resources on public participation**

The Association for Conflict Resolution, \"Best Practices for Government
Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking
Processes," [http://www.acr.org](http://www.acr.org/).

Bibliography on public participation: <http://www.uc.edu/cecs/PPB.html>.

The Consensus Building Institute, Inc., Cambridge, MA,
[http://www.cbuilding.org](http://www.cbuilding.org/).

Gramberg, M. (2001). Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policy Making. Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) Development Centre,
[Http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201141E.pdf](http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201141E.pdf).

International Association for Public Participation,
[www.iap2.org](http://www.iap2.org/).

Policy Consensus Initiative, \"Practical Guide to Consensus,\"
[http://www.policyconsensus.org](http://www.policyconsensus.org/).