How can citizens become effectively engaged in difficult policy topics? Higher levels of technical complexity, increased polarization, and competing science often leave citizens out of the democratic process. Building upon a model used by James S. Fishkin of Stanford University, we will apply mixed-methods research that combines survey methodology with experimental design. We will study whether citizens exposed to information and involved in public discourse make different policy choices than those who make choices based on their current mindsets and world views. In addition, by using random sampling survey methodology, the results can be generalized to a broader population. This is opposed to typical public hearings on contentious issues where only entrenched extreme views are represented.

Recently, Idaho has seen the disadvantages of our current lack of comprehensive energy policy in the state. For instance, Idaho missed two opportunities for large economic development opportunities due to a lack of sufficient electrical capacity. Moreover, we import over 50% of our electricity from outside the state. There is a moratorium on coal-fired power plants in Idaho and other electrical-producing resources are fraught with value-laden tradeoffs. As we look for easy solutions, our population keeps growing and so does our need for more and more electricity. It is critical that citizens have a voice in this complex policy discussion.

Using the timely topic of energy policy in Idaho, we will subject different treatment groups to various forms of one-and two-way information and interaction (e.g., balanced briefing documents, subject matter expert interaction, and small group deliberation). Our intention is to learn if and how these different treatments change citizen preferences toward energy choices and alternatives. The results may guide future research as well as provide an application for effectively bringing citizens into complex and value-laden policy discussions.