Creating Shared Understanding with Indicators
In this newsletter, we'll examine the indirect influence indicators have within a planning process, as compared to the direct and instrumental use and influence of indicators, as discussed in my previous newsletters. Drawing from my dissertation, The Use and Influence of Health Indicators in Municipal Transportation Plans, this article discusses the importance of
how indicators are developed such that they influence the thinking of policy actors and can help set an agenda for policy change.
Let's begin with a couple key points about how policy learning and change happen. My research drew from Communicative Planning Theory as well as two policy process theories from political science, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF). Learning is defined as a change in beliefs about policy goals or solutions, with the assumption that beliefs are the "glue" of politics.1 Communicative Planning Theory, and the ACF to a degree, assert that learning occurs through dialogue; that is, people learn when they are engaged in meaningful conversation in a lower-conflict, consensus-oriented discussion forum. Policy learning is a confirmed path to policy change.2
In all the cities under study, indicators had been developed in the context of community engagement processes, in which the public defined the key issues, goals, and objectives in the transportation plans. From there, city staff and consultants developed indicators to match the goals and objectives articulated by the public, typically with feedback from standing or plan-related advisory committees. As such, indicators were perceived as legitimate by policy actors. This differs from situations where the validity of the data is debated within contentious policy processes and/or processes where outside experts create the indicators.
My dissertation confirmed MSF research that demonstrates that indicators have the ability to draw attention to key issues and to frame them as problems. Policy actors frame issues as problems to justify public intervention. In my cases, the primary issue framed as a problem in many plans was about equity: equitable access to employment, transportation affordability, disparities in health outcomes, etc. Based on informant responses, this was the first time these problems had been so clearly defined within the city's transportation plans. Indicators helped people see disparities more clearly, such as this housing and transportation affordability indicator:
"A lot of the shock came from the expense of transportation in the Indianapolis region, because . . . there's a huge gap in regional job accessibility and it makes the combined housing and transportation costs the third highest in the country among our peer metros. And that usually takes people aback” (Informant 34).
Informants noted that indicator selection, being so clearly connected to community values and goals, helps frame problems that policy actors want to highlight:
“The data that you show pushes your agenda . . . . The fact that we are calling out and even researching how expensive it is to travel in Indianapolis and the disparity . . . I mean, that conveys a value” (Informant 31).
Dialogue helped not only to raise awareness of the issues but create a shared understanding and changes in policy beliefs (i.e., learning), such as the dialogue in this equity workshop:
“It was the dialogue, quite frankly . . . you're sitting in a small group around a table with people who live in this community going, ‘Whoa, wait a minute here,’ and it's like, . . . ‘Oh, I had not thought about that’ . . . . I think there are a lot of people, including many of the staff members, who are like, . . . ‘This is a lot bigger conversation than we intended’” (Informant 21).
Note that these awareness and learning opportunities only happened within the earliest parts of the transportation planning process. Once the planning processes move from setting goals to the later stages of analysis and project selection, the role of indicators changes from sparking "ideas" to providing "data" and ammunition for "argument."3
While indicators can help illuminate a problem, informants emphasized that it was the combination of data and dialogue that produces shared understanding. In fact, it was difficult to determine if the discussion about the indicator itself or policy goals more generally generated this shared understanding because the two were so intertwined. The combination of data and argument can also set the policy agenda and help advocate for policy change:
It's "not just the numbers . . . but the point, the narrative, the messaging around that, when you can use that with a broader audience, that includes not just the public, but civic leadership, community stakeholders, or . . . organizational type partners . . . I do think that can push leadership” (Informant 35, original emphasis).
In sum, make sure you develop indicators inclusively so that the users buy into them and they reflect community values. If indicators are developed by independent experts without community input, they run the risk of not being useful or perceived as illegitimate. Most importantly, the opportunity for learning and shared understanding is lost. The greatest opportunity for policy learning is within the earliest stages of a planning process: indicator development and the existing conditions analysis of a plan. Use these opportunities to raise awareness of problems and get them on the agenda for change. The next newsletter will discuss the two types of policy change that occurred within these plans.
1Paul Sabatier (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 649-692.
2Christopher Weibe (2018). Instrument constituencies and the advocacy coalition framework: An essay on the comparisons, opportunities, and intersections. Policy and Society, 37(1), 59-73.
3Carol H. Weiss (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In P. Wagner (Ed.) Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307-332). Cambridge University Press.
