The resurgence of the experts? What impact on consultations?

Right in the middle of the current health emergency, many commentators have observed that at a time of national crisis, people tend to cling to the words of people they believe to be ‘experts’. It is worth recalling that a few years ago, a leading politician claimed that we had all had rather too much of ‘experts’ and that the British people were right to disregard much of what they said.

Michael Gove came in for much ridicule for that comment, and he was largely unsuccessful in explaining it away. Indeed, his words garnered support in some circles, particularly in economics, business and planning where conventional wisdom has, on occasions proved, over time to be wrong. The usual examples include the policy switch to favour diesel cars, the privatisation of railways or the consensus that thought that universal credit was a great idea for welfare payments. Also let us remember that recent years have seen an erosion of trust in many of the great institutions of the state, from the church to the media and even Parliament. Scepticism reigns!

So it was interesting to come across a Chatham House interview with Michael Gove about a year after his notorious statement. In it, he said the following:-

'I’d say always look for the dissenting voice. I think the most important thing is to, when you’ve got a settled consensus, look at the people who are challenging it. And if you think their arguments are well constructed, then pay close attention; if you think it’s just bogus nonsense then fine, but always test every proposition. The idea that things should be taken simply on trust because of someone’s position, I think is an invitation to intellectual conformity and what we need is a vigorous, debating dissenting culture .'

At the present time, the status of an ‘expert’ matters. If he or she is “Chief Medical Officer” or a “Professor of Epidemiology”, we take note. We assume they know what they are talking about. But Gove is surely right in warning against blind acceptance of a consensus. I rather like his enthusiasm for finding ‘the dissenting voice’ though the case against politicians is that they are happy to go with the majority view if they agree with it, and the only search for the dissidents when they disagree.

A well-designed public consultation should present the arguments for and against its proposals as fairly as possible. It should avoid promoting its preferred option just by relying on the academic or operational ‘experts’ who think it’s a good idea. It should allow room for alternative arguments to be advanced, and avoid the all-too-frequent formula 'Do you agree with us that ….?' It implies that 'we are the experts and we know best'. This is particularly a challenge for the National Health Service, often prone to assert that there is a single clinical view of what is the best option. In many cases, clinicians have a variety of views and are known to argue vigorously between themselves in the options development and appraisal phase of pre-consultation. So do town planners; so do infrastructure builders, so do policy-makers. In reality, professional consensus is more elusive than we may imagine.

That is why consultation is so important. It is the best mechanism we have for testing ideas and intentions before they are implemented. It is far from perfect. You cannot consult everybody about everything, and public bodies seldom mobilise enough of the general public to express an opinion, even when issues are close to their lives. What we should be doing, however, is identifying – and mapping - those representative groups who can be the voices for those with specific interests or who are particularly affected by a set of proposals. The test for any consultation is the extent to which it has enabled decision-makers to hear the relevant arguments loud and clear.

For this to happen, consultations have to tell the truth and the whole truth. This is where the ‘experts’ matter most. Not in advocating a particular course of action, though no doubt they may have passionate views on such. But in explaining the facts of a situation in a totally fair and unbiased way. Just imagine the press conferences we are following daily on the coronavirus pandemic. There is a subtle distinction between the roles of the politician and the ‘expert’ medics. We may well listen to Ministers about their plans and programmes. But we reach for the experts to understand the facts and the figures.

When normality returns, those planning and organising public consultations may have the benefit of some lessons learnt from the painful process of re-adjusting our perceptions of ‘experts.’ Scepticism is still around, but maybe we will now need to make better use of the expertise and experience of the finest in their field, and, in consequence, raise the level of debate in public affairs.

1. Gove was interviewed at the 2017 European Think Tank Summit, hosted by Chatham House, and reproduced here
2. The Institute provides its clients and supporters with a range of advice and assistance
3. Institute associates have set up a wiki to help those working in consultation and engagement by sharing our knowledge and collective wisdom.

This is the 358th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement.