Gathering Evidence and Data to Bridge the Divide: A Recap of a Jeffersonian Dinner

by Paul Kuhne, Roundtables Program Manager, Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE)

Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden issued a powerful marching order for the American people: “We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.” His comments touched on a growing phenomenon that has produced a threat of violence and democratic backsliding: affective polarization. This division has led many Americans to not only ideologically disagree with one another but actively despise and loathe the other side for their political beliefs. 

To address this threat, an ecosystem of depolarization organizations has implemented a variety of behavioral and educational interventions to help Americans cross the divide and understand the other side. While these programs have been rolled out widely, few individuals are rapidly scaling programs or gathering evidence and data to measure the efficacy of these programs. Practitioners and researchers alike have asked: What are the long-term effects of these interventions? How do we actually measure whether someone is less polarized?

On Tuesday, May 11, the Open Gov Hub hosted a Jeffersonian Dinner with a small group of discussants who set out to answer these questions. The conversation was facilitated by Paul Kuhne, the Roundtables Program Manager at the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE), a Hub Member, who led a diverse cadre of participants in a free-flowing conversation about the effectiveness of polarization interventions.

Participants represented organizations like the Bridge Alliance, AllSides, Brown University, University of California at Berkeley, and Facebook. The group covered serious ground, but also identified several focused, high-level takeaways to help define the field. Those included the importance of:

Defining the Type of Polarization to Address.

Is the intervention we’re designing intended to address mass polarization or elite polarization? Does it solve for attitudinal polarization or affective polarization? As researchers, policymakers, and program designers think about possible strategies to address polarization, these questions matter. While groups like Braver Angels or Make America Dinner Again seek to create bonds of connection that would address mass polarization, advocacy groups and researchers should think about elections funding, media’s financial incentives, and addressing the negative effects of social media use. 

Investigating the Feedback Loop.

Many participants noted that elite polarization has more negative consequences than mass polarization, with many Americans probably having lower levels of polarization than described by the media. However, elite polarization in elections, the media, and in institutions can lead to polarization among average Americans. It would be valuable for researchers and practitioners to incorporate this feedback loop into research designs and potential interventions. 

Identifying Clear Outcomes for Interventions and Data.

Based on the kind of polarization we’re seeking to address, researchers and policymakers should think about the intended outcomes we want to see from those individuals participating. For mass polarization, the intended outcomes may promote overlapping identities or reduce the threat of violence. For elite polarization, we may want to promote the promotion of democratic norms or incentives for re-election.  

The group also identified other areas of interest including the need to further research the value of local media and publicizing messages of common unity, studying depolarization coaches who work with local political candidates, and how the depolarized masses can influence elite polarization. The Open Gov Hub hopes to continue these conversations in the Fall and resume in-person Jeffersonian Dinners on topics that build upon its Defending Democracy initiative.