Discussion: Designing Spaces of Engagement
While science communication is often discussed as an effort to make complex, scientific concepts more approachable for "lay" audiences, we propose viewing science communication as essentially an effort to make what an expert community knows available, approachable, and actionable for those outside that expert community, within a new rhetorical context. This view shifts the audience of science communication from passive receivers of information to active participants with goals and contributions. In this sense, this perspective aligns science communication with our notion of technical communication, where the primary focus is not merely to make information approachable but to create the conditions that allow people to address problems (Simmons & Zoetewey, 2012).
In the two cases of public engagement we've discussed, each of the digital tools seem designed to provide stakeholders with additional ways to access information. In a broad sense, these artifacts certainly allow more people to access project information and subsequently participate (even if superficially) in the decision-making process than physical meetings alone. For example, as a web-based artifact, BEP's digital EIS makes use of linking to provide access to a wealth of data; it also makes use of GIS to incorporate information-rich, interactive maps that are not typically part of traditional EISs. Relevant agencies and representatives at the state and local levels are likely to appreciate having remote access to all that data alongside the modularized written content that the digital EIS provides. For some citizen participants, the visual format might be easier to engage with or more relevant than a 100–1,000-page technical report. The infrastructure firm that designed the platforms for both the digital EIS and virtual reading room said the technologies will improve stakeholder engagement by "presenting highly technical information in a user-friendly online and interactive format… [leading] to improved outcomes for communities worldwide" (AECOM, 2020).
Of course, making specialized information available and more approachable for a variety of audiences via digital tools is certainly important; however, it does not necessarily empower stakeholders nor does it guarantee of improved outcomes (Blythe, Grabill, & Riley, 2008; Card, 2020; Grabill & Simmons, 1998; Simmons, 2008; Simmons & Grabill, 2007). We agree with Dave Clark (2007), who suggested that "empowerment is, of course, far more complex than simple access to information" (p. 157). Indeed, a closer look at the events and artifacts that facilitate public engagement in the BEP case (e.g., the webinar, the virtual reading room, the reports to be reviewed) suggest primarily one-way conversations in which information is being delivered. For example, consider the virtual reading room: an online, interactive space that visually approximates a poster session. Created as part of an effort to provide "stakeholders with a safe and effective way to understand the proposed project and provide input despite social distancing requirements," the virtual reading room is visually rich, available 24/7 with internet access, and mobile-friendly (AECOM - Environmental Services, 2021). While the amount of information a viewer has access to is extensive, the virtual reading room doesn't replicate the most important function of a poster session or open house—dialogue with humans.
The use of forums and idea boards in EngagementHQ have more potential to facilitate dialogue. Rather than provide participants with a digital comment box, these tools allow agency managers to create a space where participants can share information and express preferences to the agency as well as to fellow stakeholders. Across these forum comments and ideas, we see invested individuals and stakeholder organizations not only posting ideas but also substantiating with data both the problem their idea responds to and the efficacy of the solution. The MPCA has more flexibility in this context than in the NEPA-mandated review of the BEP impact statement, so we make this comparison not to pass judgement but rather to draw attention to the varied rhetorical functions these tools support. While it is difficult to replicate a design charrette, card sorting activity, or World Cafe in a digital, asynchronous modality, we see in EngagementHQ/MPCA an attempt.
Public engagement is often viewed as being more about questions of value and action than questions of fact—as the place of politics, not science. Yet, we contend that both planners and participants make and contest arguments about what we ought to do based on the questions and answers of science. Further, Moore and Elliot's contention that public engagement is at least in part about gathering data of participants values, preferences, and tacit knowledge positions the entire process as science2—as doing democracy scientifically. Through this lens, the MPCA's use of a survey is not only a mechanism to solicit ideas from stakeholders, but also to collect data on their values, preferences, and perceptions. Following Kristen R. Moore (2017b), we contend the engagement planner-as-technical communicator is tasked with not only providing participants with relevant scientific information but also with designing a space in which relevant science can effectively inform decisions—a space in which data is shared but also engaged, evaluated, and created.