How to Deal with Uninformed and Poorly Informed Opinions of Citizens? A Critical Approach to Online Public Engagement

Abstract

Public engagement is increasingly recognized as a mutual learning of perspectives between lay and expert stakeholders. Still, the intention to educate citizens sometimes prevails over an open and honest exchange. Because of this overemphasis on education, researchers may more easily label lay opinions invalid if uninformed or based on distorted beliefs. Our experience with uninformed and poorly informed (UPI) opinions in an online public engagement initiative (the DNA Debate) has taught us to think differently. First, UPI opinions might be ethically instructive, provided that one searches for the implicit message participants try to convey related to their values, fears, or needs. Since there will always be less informed or uninformed citizens, that would avoid rejecting their voices. Second, UPI opinions may highlight misconceptions in the general population for which more targeted education is necessary. This article is an invitation to reflect ethically on why and how researchers should deal with UPI opinions, illustrated by quotes from the DNA Debate.