Assessing solar geoengineering research funders: Insights from two US public deliberations

Forum scheduling, recruitment, and demographics

We collected data on public perceptions and preferences regarding SRM research funders through two large-scale, deliberative public forums, designed to engage diverse lay publics without strong vested interests in geoengineering. The deliberative format aims to elucidate public reasoning around issues that have not (yet) reached broad public consciousness. Deliberation with peers provides participants the opportunity to learn about the topic, apply information, offer arguments and reasoning, and develop thoughtful preferences (in contrast, deliberation with experts tends to leave participants deferring to expert preferences and knowledge, per, e.g., Bellamy and Lezaun, 2015). The deliberative approach permits inquiry to penetrate past initial responses to an unfamiliar topic (which more conventional polling might capture) to understand participant values and reasoning, which may better clarify and anticipate public responses to a topic over time (Rask et al., 2011; Sclove, 2010; Tomblin et al., 2015).

We convened 88 participants in Phoenix, AZ and 83 participants in Boston in September 2018. For both forum sites, we engaged publics broadly corresponding to community demographics with regard to gender, age, education, income, race, political orientation, and ethnicity. We began local recruitment roughly one month before each forum, soliciting participants via Craigslist, social media platforms, and flyers in high-traffic locations (e.g. libraries and grocery stores). We aimed to achieve levels of diversity in demographic representation similar to those present in forum host cities, erring on the side of minority representation (Figure 1). As we intended to investigate preferences among the lay public, where geoengineering is relatively unknown, we excluded individuals possessing expertise in geoengineering and related fields; and minimized inclusion of participants formally involved in climate change advocacy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Participant age, race, education, and political orientation demographics across both deliberation sites.

To facilitate participation from groups often underrepresented at science policy public engagements, we limited the forum structure to a single day and offered participants a 100 USD gift card at the forum’s conclusion. Individuals lacking post-secondary education were underrepresented, as is often the case for deliberative forums (Tomblin et al., 2015). Other participant demographic proportions largely aligned with U.S. Census Bureau data. While we make no claims to formal representation or statistical significance, we included and elicited responses from a broad cross-section of local communities in our forums in order to construct a diverse value map of public views (Sclove, 2010). This method permitted capture of nuanced public views overlooked or elided by large, quantitative surveys (Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011).

Overall forum structure

Each forum was organized into three thematic sessions, each focusing on a different aspect of prospective SRM research efforts. Session 1 focused on potential research directions and methods; Session 2 dealt with funders; and Session 3 treated decision-making and governance. Prior to the forum, participants received background information on climate change and on each of these three topics.

Sessions involved both group discussion and response and individual responses. During each session, trained facilitators guided groups of 6 to 8 participants through shared exercises to fill out “Solar Radiation Management Research Plan” frameworks (Figure 2). While this study aimed primarily to examine individual preferences, this group “plan-building” exercise provided a framework and context for participant discussion and reasoning and helped to maintain participant investment and engagement. Following group discussion, participants individually completed questionnaires about their personal views and preferences regarding the session topic. ²

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

“Solar Radiation Management Research Plan” completed by each group over the course of the forum.

Each session began with a video introducing its focal topic, with the first session’s video reiterating general background information. Discussion was framed and supported by printed deliberation materials, upon which the videos were based. Such structure and information are necessary if participants are to feel (and be) informed regarding an issue as unfamiliar as SRM research, but inevitably influence participant reviews and responses. We oriented background material toward topics of interest to participants in two broadly-framed focus groups, and of importance to experts and stakeholders in a workshop, all performed prior to forum design. The forum design aimed to ask participants open questions regarding SRM research, corresponding to many dimensions of both “whether” and “how” SRM research should be performed; to leave room for participants to offer answers besides those included in our framing; and to provide open, natural-language responses expressing their thoughts and values.

In addition, we attempted to avoid the forms of pre-framing discussed by Bellamy and Lezaun’s (2015) appraisal of prior SRM public engagement. Introductory materials aimed to situate SRM as one among many potential responses to climate change. We asked participants whether and how SRM research should be conducted now, not whether SRM should be deployed under a hypothetical “climate emergency”—though we did present climate change as unambiguously real, anthropogenic, and harmful. We did not use the idiom of “naturalness” to describe SRM techniques (though participants introduced it themselves in the forums). Technical and policy geoengineering experts were present at forums to answer specific participant questions via remote text chat, but did not participate in or lead discussions. It is impossible to avoid framing effects, but we attempted to avoid previously identified framing problems and to leave our frames loose and mutable.

Funder session structure

In Session 2, participants articulated their preferences regarding SRM research funders with support from supplementary materials. Deliberation structure presented six possible categories of SRM research funder: corporations, civilian federal government, military, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), philanthropies, and universities.

As forum participants were US residents, “military” and “government” referred to US institutions. Though international government funding is a distinct possibility, we chose to focus on participants’ preferences regarding their own government’s actions. Some participants nonetheless asserted that an international funding and governance structure was necessary. We included universities as a separate funder category because, though universities depend upon other funders (especially state and federal governments), they nonetheless represent a significant nexus of multiple funding sources and of research agenda-setting. Prior to and during the forum, we briefed participants on the relative proportion of federal funding allocated to different types of research, funder identities, usual funding domains, oversight capabilities, and potential funder interests in SRM research. Briefing materials included recent annual research budgets for at least one example organization from each category. ³

In discussion, each group selected one to three funder categories to finance the research trajectory developed in Session 1; and provided a brief, textual explanation of its choice(s). Groups that chose not to pursue SRM research in Session 1 would have been asked what classes of organization they would want to fund a medium-investment research plan consisting of computer modeling, indoor research, and small-scale field trials. All groups, however, chose to pursue SRM research, so this contingency was not used. Following group discussion, participants indicated their levels of individual support for each SRM research funder category and provided rationales for their choices (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Participants completed individual response sheets at the end of Session 2, providing both quantitative and qualitative data on preferences for SRM research funders.

Funder session analysis

For purposes of quantitative analysis, we assigned qualitative support ratings numerical values in a linear “support index”: “very much” = 3; “somewhat” = 2; “not really” = 1; “not at all” = 0; and “not sure” is null. Due to the index’s post hoc imposition, it does not in any absolute sense reflect participants’ support for an SRM research funder. Rather, it provides insight into participants’ relative degrees of support for different actors’ involvement in funding SRM research.

Basic quantitative analysis of participants’ individual funder support index values provided means and distributions for both locations and aggregate data. We used two-sample t-tests to assess differences between sites at 0.05 significance level. Support ratings exhibited minimal differences between the two sites, with only individual NGO ratings diverging in a statistically significant fashion (p = 0.033). ⁴ We discuss participant data largely in cross-site aggregate, though we note local differences where pertinent.

We open-coded participants’ written rationales for their individual funder evaluations into thematic categories developed during the coding process (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Open coding developed a two-tiered coding system, with “top-level” codes denoting cross-cutting topics invoked with reference to multiple different funder categories; and lower-level subcodes designating specific ideas about particular funder categories within top-level codes. We draw on these funder-specific subcodes in results and discussion, but we do not here treat them comprehensively. For extended treatment, see Kaplan et al. (2019).

Responses were non-exclusively coded on a per-participant basis into all thematic categories addressed, meaning that we counted the number of participants whose responses addressed each identified topical category. One author iterated and expanded upon categories developed in coding the Arizona dataset while coding the Massachusetts dataset. Both additional authors validated category counts via independent re-coding. Our qualitative results also exhibited minimal differences between forum sites, so we treat the two locations’ data together in the following analysis and discussion.

To investigate participant interest in funder collaboration—a notable topical category in individual responses—we also analyzed funder collaboration preferences derived from group-level data. The group “SRM research plan” was primarily a framework for deliberation and preference formation rather than a data collection tool. However, in light of the interest in funder collaboration expressed in individual responses, we turned to the group data for additional insight. To determine common funder groupings, we first noted all of the combinations with which groups selected funders. After recording these combinations for both forum sites, we compared the groupings between the two sites and looked for commonalities regarding the funding capacities of the selected funders. Funding capacity served as a starting point for combining similar funder selections, as we initially sought to understand how selections of funders mapped onto group selections of cost-scaled research directions from Session 1. Thematic coding of written group selection rationales provided initial information on group funder perceptions and collaboration preferences. Due to our low group sample size, these data are presented and discussed below as a novel, exploratory way to consider SRM funders rather than a prescriptive list of funder collaborations.

Quantitative funder ratings

Of the included SRM research funders, universities and philanthropies enjoyed the highest mean support index values (2.4), followed by NGOs (2.1), federal government (1.8), corporations (1.4), and finally military (1.2). Using the numerical support index to order responses, universities, philanthropies, and NGOs receive response distributions peaking at the high end of the scale, while responses for corporations, federal government, and military are more centrally distributed (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Frequency of participant support ratings for each funder category.

Textual evaluation rationales

Of 171 total participants, 167 provided a brief written rationale explaining their funder evaluations. Thematic open coding of rationales identified 16 general topics. Category frequency in individual rationales ranged from 1 (0.58%) of 171 to 92 (54%) of 171. The three most frequently identified categories (funder funding capacity, funder motivations, and funder research capacity) were invoked by 66 or more participants, while all other categories are invoked by 28 or fewer participants (Figure 5). In the following subsections, we discuss the three most addressed topical categories in some detail and briefly sketch the remaining 13. We include less frequently addressed themes so as to include minority positions, which may represent important but little-recognized issues.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Topical categories exhibited in participant funder rationales (n = 171).

Funder combination and cooperation

As discussed above, 26% of individual responses either advocate for cooperation among funders or evaluate funders on their (perceived) cooperative capabilities. Because of this finding’s novelty and relevance to the organization of SRM research, we draw upon data from our forum’s group activities to further detail participant preferences regarding funder cooperation. To refresh, persistent discussion groups of 6 to 8 participants filled out “SRM Research Plans” during the course of the forum. In Session 2, groups were asked to choose and justify categories of funders to support their developing research schemes.

Of 26 deliberation groups (14 in Phoenix, 12 in Boston), 24 (92%) groups include multiple funders in their “SRM Research Plans” (Table 1). Thirteen (50%) groups combine small, mission-focused funders with federal government as a funder. Only two (8%) groups select a singular funder; one includes only universities and one includes only philanthropies. In total, seven groups (27%) select one or multiple small funders. One group (4%) combines philanthropies with both the federal government and military as funders. Two groups (8%) select broad-based funder collaborations with public, private, and philanthropic organizations; and three groups (11%) choose diverse non-governmental funders.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Five broad types of funder grouping. Each group selection is assigned to only one category.

Category	Description	Groups selecting (n = 26)
Small funders	Small, mission-focused funders	7 (27%)
	Card combinations of NGOs, philanthropies, and universities
Small funders and government	Small, mission-focused funders with financial stability from the federal government	13 (50%)
	Card combinations of federal government with universities, NGOs, and philanthropies
Small funder with government and military	Small, mission-focused funder with strong government financial and coordination support	1 (4%)
	Card combinations of federal government with military and philanthropies
Broad-based funder collaboration	Diverse funders from public, private, and philanthropic organizations	2 (8%)
	Card combinations of corporations, military, universities, and philanthropies
Nongovernmental funders	Non-governmental, multiple funders	3 (11%)
	Card combinations of corporations with universities and philanthropies

In written rationales, some groups discuss existing partnerships between the prospective funders. One group observes that the federal government, non-governmental organizations, and universities “already work with each other and . . . have the power, knowledge and money to start this type of project” (AZ Group 9). Multiple groups view diversity in funding sources positively, asserting that it can “offer . . . inclusivity” or allow funders to “balance [one another] out . . . with . . . international [and] national funding resources” (AZ Group 10). Others feel that funder diversity could support continuity in SRM research funding, favoring a “non-politicized, less changeable future” (MA Group 8) afforded by a distributed funding model. Some groups combine funders based on presumptions of shared missions and values; this result resonates with participants’ aforementioned interest in and concern for funder motivations. For example, one group holds that universities, NGOs, and philanthropies possess a “passion and commitment to research” (AZ Group 12), grouping them as funding collaborators. Perceived funding capacity also serves as a basis for funder combinations. Groups favoring smaller-scale (thus lower-cost) research directions during Session 1 of the deliberation discuss Small funders as good “small scale pilot funders . . . before major investment” (AZ Group 5). Rather than emphasizing scale of funding, some groups focus on the source of the funding. For example, groups selecting the Nongovernmental funding category support “voluntary” funding, regardless of scale, rather than “compulsory” funding in the form of tax-funded research. In general, participants did not display wide agreement on who should fund SRM research, outside a common preference for diverse sets of funders.

Funder category ratings

In aggregate, participants most supported universities and philanthropies as SRM research funders, followed by NGOs, federal government, corporations, and finally the military. Universities, philanthropies, and, to a lesser extent, NGOs received stronger signals in high than in low support ratings, with federal government, corporate, and military responses more evenly distributed.

These results align with the relative commonality of both positive and negative comments regarding the latter three funders in textual responses. Positive and negative comments on each funder tended to speak in different registers, with, for example, comments in favor of civilian federal government spending referencing its significant financial resources and history of successful research; while unfavorable comments evoked concerns regarding inappropriate motivation, corruption, or inefficiency. The most highly rated funder categories—philanthropies and universities—received similar numbers of favorable comments to less highly rated funders, but fewer unfavorable comments. Some participants stated that these funders were simply unobjectionable, thus there was no reason to exclude them regardless of their positive capacity to contribute.

Our quantitative results display some similarities to GAO’s (2011) decision-maker preference responses, with “scientific” organizations (e.g. universities) preferred and national government involvement cautiously supported. However, we also saw relatively high support for involvement of philanthropies and NGOs in SRM research compared to their respondents’ relatively minimal support. This disjuncture may be interpreted in multiple ways. Among other and more complex factors, it could derive from the aforementioned framing disparities; from a shift in political climate and expectations regarding climate change action funding sources between 2011 and the present; or from a simple difference in sample populations.

Our military funder category and GAO’s international coalition and public stakeholders are respectively absent in their and our framings, stymieing comparison regarding those actors. Cross-comparison is further muddied by differences in framing—GAO asked participants about stakeholders’ involvement in geoengineering implementation decision-making, whereas we focused on SRM research funding. Nonetheless, these broad consonances with the GAO study may suggest cross-context consistency in perceptions of scientific communities, for-profit organizations, and government. These emergent patterns merit further attention from social science researchers and SRM stakeholders.

Evaluation themes

While previous studies about public preferences for SRM research describe a few preferred funder qualities—specifically, orientation toward environmental values and a commitment to transparency—participants in our study evaluated funders in at least 16 different ways (Figure 4). Significant and previously unreported features or dimensions of interest include funders’ capabilities and inclinations to steadily support research; their perceived research capabilities, including institutional characters and access to expertise; their capabilities and inclinations to collaborate with other types of funding entity; and their duties or responsibilities with regard to climate change.

We, like several prior engagements, find significant participant interest in potential funders’ motivations regarding SRM research. Our study additionally shows that laypersons are capable of thinking about this issue in highly diverse and nuanced ways. Some of our participants expressed distrust of profit incentives or private interest in SRM research (as in GAO, 2011; Parkhill et al., 2013; The Royal Society, 2009), while others aired concerns about narrow benefit at broad expense or weaponization motives in SRM research (as in Wibeck et al., 2017). Though it is not one of our “big three” response categories, 14% of our participants wrote specifically about funder accountability and transparency mechanisms, resonating with the aforementioned studies’ participant preference that funders make clear their “actions, motivations, and purpose” (The Royal Society, 2009: 43). Some of our participants explicitly stated that SRM research should be conducted with an aim toward transnational social and environmental benefit. More expressed concerns about “corruption,” “bias,” or “interference” in research deriving from inappropriately motivated or involved funders, as did participants in the GAO (2011) and the The Royal Society (2009) studies. Overall, our results bear out prior work illustrating public interest in research actor motivations while providing additional detail on specific perceptions and concerns regarding different actor categories.

Alongside these resonances, however, our participants exhibited interest in several previously unreported topics. The two most referenced, funding capacity and research capacity, both pertain to funders’ capabilities to support and conduct research. Participants displayed diverse and nuanced reasoning in their treatments of funding and research capacity. Funding capacity evaluations dealt with funders’ material resources, their inclinations to support research, and the possibility of inconsistency. Research capacity comments included reflections on funders’ research histories, access to relevant expertise or resources, and institutional cultures. Participants balanced these considerations with other perceived funder attributes—for example, potential to “bias” research, accountability, and potential research outcomes—when explaining, justifying, and qualifying their funder evaluations and preferences.

Participants also expressed interest in SRM funders’ cooperative capabilities. Some groups may have included multiple funders out of compromise rather than strategic planning; nonetheless, participant and group responses illustrated nuanced, savvy thinking about the organization of research funding. Some participants advocated for opportunistic fund-seeking by mission-focused organizations. Others advocated for pluralism in funding sources to support diverse research approaches. It is worthy of mention that 92% of groups included multiple funders in their plans, while only 26% of individuals explicitly addressed cooperation in their written responses. While this discrepancy likely corresponds to some extent to participants’ time and attention limitations during written response periods, it is significant enough to bear further investigation. It could suggest that participants are more likely to consider cooperation when negotiating among different perspectives in a group. Alternatively, some participants may have presumed that cooperation will occur, thus found explicit mention unnecessary; while some groups may have included multiple funders under an expectation of pluralistic but noncooperative funding.

Last of our major novelties, 10% of participants asserted that certain classes of organization—most commonly, federal government—have a duty to pursue action on climate change. These views on institutional duty likely pertain more to climate change action in general than to SRM specifically. Participants espousing such perspectives tended to view SRM as merely one piece of climate change response, endorsing research because it’s “doing something” or as a contingency plan.

Most participant statements treat SRM research funding as desirable; though we caution that a few participants, contrary to instructions, seemed to take the imagined perspectives of SRM researchers for purposes of funder evaluation. Nonetheless, high average participant support ratings for SRM research from our forums’ Session 1 bear out the possibility that many participants do—provided sometimes stringent conditions regarding objectives, organization, funding, and governance (consonant with, e.g. Bellamy et al., 2017; Burns et al., 2016)—want SRM research to occur (Kaplan et al., 2019). Large proportions of participants expressed desires for certain qualities in funders, but we saw less consensus around which funders actually possess those qualities. As public evaluation of actual SRM research projects would relate to involved institutions’ perceived identities, it seems very possible that consensus on desired funder qualities would not produce consensus on desired funders.