Subject: The Experts and the Public in Conflict
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:
            ** The Experts Vs. The Public **
Professional land managers, and their planning staff, often serve
as stumbling blocks to effective resolution of public issues.
Surprisingly, it is "professionalism," or more precisely stated
"professional airs" that gets in the way. In many cases, the
technical expertise of professionals alienates members of the public,
because the two groups cannot communicate one with another. According
to Daniel Yankelovich, himself an expert (in communications), the
problem stems from the education, training, and especially the
learned language of the professionals.  In "Experts Vs. The Public",
Richard Lindeborg, WO PAO, adapts Yankelovich's arguments to National
Forest management issues to suggest why we have such difficulties
with public forest management decisions. *2 pages*  Dve.....
(If you like Lindeborg's adaptation, and would also like the
Yankelovich article, send a DG request for the article to
B.Carrol:W01B)

                        -------========X========-------

The Experts Vs. The Public*                                            
                                                               December 17,
                                                               1990
                                                                         
revised February 6, 1991
Richard Lindeborg, Program Analyst

USDA Forest Service
Public Affairs Office
Market Research Section

                            Management Implications

Our inability to reach consensus on
management of the National Forests comes
only in part from the complexities of the
issues involved.  A greater part of the
problem may be misunderstanding between
the experts (land managers) and the
public.

Public opinion expert Daniel Yankelovich says America is
failing to solve the "competitiveness problem" because
economic experts view the problem--and its possible
solutions--in a far different context than do the
ordinary people who must be persuaded to help solve the
problem.  His argument also applies fairly well to
controversy over forest management in the United States.

OWNING THE ISSUE--It seems few advocates press for a
comprehensive plan to reconcile the environmental,
social, and economic demands on our forests.  Instead,
various groups act to block management activities, even
as land managers attempt to implement them.  Land
managers have been accused of trying to "own" the issue
and of not giving the public an equal voice in its
solution.  They do this largely by giving technical
definitions to the terms of the disagreement.  This
alienates the public, which often seems unwilling to
grapple with overall forest management and instead
focuses on details or on nontechnical issues such as
preservationism and a romantic concept of nature.

A TECHNICAL VIEW--Land managers view the forest in
technical terms, concentrating on such concepts as
productivity, investment, and research.  The technical
view produces issues such as sustainable yield, site
indexes, and cumulative impacts.

THE POPULAR VIEW--Members of the public view the forest
in moral terms, concentrating on spiritual and lifestyle
values.  People have only a limited sense that forests
must yield products to keep our economy strong or that
managed forests can be more desirable than natural
forests.  They are motivated by issues such as
disappearing old-growth, endangered species, and bargain
basement timber giveaways.

WHO COMES OUT AHEAD?--People seem to admire
environmentalists for exerting moral influence, and they
seem unimpressed by the technical expertise of the land
managers.  On the other hand, many people still have
faith that somehow the government will find solutions. 
This faith allows people to say they take the problem
seriously and yet remain largely complacent about it.
_______________

    *Arguments derived from "The Competitiveness
Conundrum" by Daniel Yankelovich.  The American
Enterprise, Sept./Oct. 1990, pp. 43-51.

Yankelovich lists four serious obstacles in the path of
public understanding:

Obstacle 1:  Defining the Debate in Technical
Terms--Yankelovich describes a conversation between
Martin Feldstein (then chairman of Ronald Reagan's
Council of Economic Advisers) and Akio Morita (chairman
of Sony Corporation).  Feldstein insisted that the key
to reversing the United States trade deficit with Japan
is to devalue the dollar further so that American-made
products will be more price-competitive.  Morita said
Feldstein was wrong.  He said, "The secret is not a
cheaper dollar, it is more attractive products . . .
that give consumers the features they want, that are
good value for the money and are nicely designed." 
Feldstein defines the solution in technical terms,
Morita defines it in terms of what people want.

Obstacle 2:  Different Value Systems--Yankelovich says,
"Our system of government assumes that those who act for
the public have superior knowledge, but that they share
the public's goals and values.  But on many issues this
assumption is invalid.  Leaders and experts seek to
advance their own values and interests--this is why so
much emphasis is put on public relations.  Correcting
the public's understanding is rarely the goal of public
relations.  The usual goal is to make it possible for
[the experts] to achieve objectives and advance values
the public does not fully share."

Obstacle 3:  Conflicting Messages--Yankelovich says
misunderstandings develop when people receive confusing
and contradictory messages.  This can be the case in
forest management issues.  Land managers say people need
forest products and set targets for their production. 
Traditional targets include the timber harvest and the
number of animals on the range--fiber production goals. 
More modern targets include visitor use days.  Many
public-based groups send out opposing, more
conservation-minded messages, such as save the trees,
save the animals, and keep nature pristine for future
generations.

Obstacle 4:  Framework Differences--Experts and the
public often use the same words with different meanings. 
Public land may mean something different to the public
than to land managers, as may stewardship, conservation,
or even the term land management itself.  According to
Yankelovich, "Communication between groups holding
different frameworks is notoriously difficult,
especially when there is little interest in
understanding each other."

Yankelovich doesn't believe a less parochial approach by
the experts is enough to confront a major problem and
come up with a strategy the public will support.  He
says it also takes inspired leadership to fashion a
strategy that will produce results and win public
support, particularly if pain and sacrifice are
involved.  He does feel, however, that parochialism on
the part of experts discourages the nation's leaders
from formulating strategies and choices the public can
debate and work through.  Above all, it prevents the
underlying value conflicts involved in alternative
strategies from being clearly presented.