 Challenges Of Forming An Interdisciplinary Team
"Engineers have no compassion. They don’t understand
people and they sure can’t communicate. All scientists
can relate to are facts and figures – and they talk in
such scientific terms no one can understand them. I’m
afraid to put the project’s technical team in front of
the public."
"Public information? You might as well call it public
dis-information – it’s all spin. And how could
the public add any value to a project—they’re
all just NIMBYs."
There might be no other two groups so far apart on a continuum,
and so completely misunderstood by one another. It’s
almost like they speak a different language—actually,
they do speak a different language.
The work of engineers and scientists relies on hard facts
that can be proven, that are consistent and logical. Public
involvement (PI) specialists work in the realm of social science,
a soft science, where they must work with behaviors, opinions
and attitudes that are often inconsistent and even illogical.
Yet, to yield an acceptable water project, both parties are
absolutely necessary parts of the equation. A project has
to be technically feasible – but it also has to be acceptable
to the public or in many cases, it won’t happen.
In a logical world, one would simply present the facts and
people would understand and believe them—after all,
the information is coming from a well-credentialed technical
expert.
Many times, when faced with an extremely emotional citizen,
one might think that he or she just doesn’t understand
the facts, and, that if she just understood the facts, the
science, she wouldn’t be so upset.
That’s hardly ever the case. The one thing that is
provable is that when dealing with public perceptions, the
facts and science are ineffective weapons against emotion.
People don’t want to hear the facts – they can’t
even hear the facts – if their emotions are engaged.
A few months ago, Tampa Bay Water had an ad hoc committee
of citizens, municipal water professionals and planners helping
the utility determine criteria for siting wells. Several of
the citizens had studied the subject on their own and believed
that the project could contaminate private wells. During the
meeting, the project engineer was explaining to the group
that in a solution, heavier particles settled to the bottom.
One of the citizens looked her dead in the eye and said "I
don’t believe that."
Even the public involvement people were stumped. But the
project engineer didn’t miss a beat.
"Well," she said. "I can accept that."
Sometimes it takes tremendous discipline to deal with the
public effectively. But as the old saying goes "I’ve
got to know that you care, before I care what you know."
And to effectively deal with the public, the project team
must make citizens feel that they have been heard, and that
the team cares about what they think.
So how do technical and PI professionals find common ground?
Both parties have to work hard at understanding one another,
because they need each other. Many well-engineered projects
have failed because public opinion has turned against them.
And often, what the public wants in a project – usually
guarantees of no adverse effects – is not scientifically
possible. It’s up to the project team to work together
to find acceptable solutions.
The Tampa Bay region, for example, is mandated to cut back
pumping at 11 regional wellfields by 2003,while still meeting
the region’s need for water. Tampa Bay Water put together
a Master Water Plan that includes diverse sources so that
no one source would be over-tapped, and a reservoir to store
water for use during dry periods.
However, the people who live near the surface water bodies
don’t want that water harvested. People near the proposed
reservoir are worried about the safety of the structure. The
people who live near the proposed desalination plant site
love desal, as long as it is somewhere else. No one wants
more groundwater. But everyone wants cheap water. And no one
believes we won’t have enough water if we do nothing.
The only way Tampa Bay Water’s Master Water Plan will
succeed is if technical folks and public involvement folks
team up to work through the issues. So the common ground is
that both want to make the project happen.
An additional challenge is that technical professionals sometimes
think of public involvement as something they offer off the
ala carte menu. "I’d like a public meeting and
two news releases. And, some damage control on the side."
Of course, that’s not the way public involvement works.
Public participation programs can only succeed if the function
is integrated into the project and if the public involvement
professionals are integrated into the project team. Why? If
public involvement professionals are involved in team meetings
and kept in the communications loop, they can see the full
picture of the project. The more they know, the more they
can contribute. The true value of the public involvement professional
comes from his or her ability to:
- Identify issues of public concern
- Identify areas where public concerns can be addressed
- Point out situations, which could generate negative press
stories and suggest proactive ways to avoid them
- Identify and develop good news stories
- Suggest ways to more effectively communicate
- Recommend adaptations of the original public involvement strategy
based on new project information.
The authors strongly recommend that public involvement professionals
be included on the project team and attend team meetings,
so that they are as responsible for the success of the project
as the technical team.
Sometimes public involvement professionals must go the extra
mile to prove to the technical team that what they do has
worth. Even then, sometimes it is just not possible to get
acceptance from some scientists. But it’s worth the
effort because the relationship between the two groups is
truly symbiotic. And a project’s success depends on
the ability of the two groups to integrate their activities.
Identifying Key Stakeholders and Groups
Forming Relationships
|
