
(Indeed, we show in a forthcoming article in the journal the Public Understanding of Science that the tensions between qualitative researchers and survey researchers in the study of public perceptions of science is unnecessary and unproductive.)
Not only do forums make for an effective investigative method, but they are also great strategic communication tools. These types of projects portray sponsoring institutions as concerned with two-way dialogue. Much like Hillary Clinton in rolling out her Senate and presidential campaigns has promoted the image of a “listening tour,” holding town meeting-style forums may help soften polarization in views about controversial science.
Though studies show that the people most likely to show up for these events are the already politically involved, informed, and opinion intense, other research shows that if these same participants believe they have been heard or consulted, they are more likely to accept the final policy decision, even it runs against their initial preferences. Moreover, if there is enough media publicity surrounding the project, incidental exposure in combination with discussion among some citizens might trigger a motivation for more information in the news or online, subsequently leading to informal learning. Finally, borrowing from the work by Robert Putnam and others, these types of projects are a central way to connect national-level science and media organizations to local communities and citizens, forging relationships and trust that likely lead back to greater public support for the institutions.