I am a researcher working in a larger movement that has a moral and political goal.

Working towards this goal requires two types of work:

  1. Deliberation. We need to conduct research and rigorous thinking to figure out how best to further our goal (e.g. what specific policies will deliver the most impact in terms of our goal).
  2. Persuasion. Once we have deliberated and decided upon specific policies, we need to persuade the relevant decision-makers to adopt those policies. There’s nothing wrong with this; any successful political movement needs to convince audiences of its goals and its policy platform.

However, these two components must not be confused.

For example, deliberation is often messy and involves weighing many complex pieces of evidence; adopting this style of writing when trying to sell a political program is an easy way to lose your audience.

In contrast, persuasion targets particular decisions; adopting this style when speaking to people within the movement is an easy way to both erode trust and to miss out on important pieces of evidence that are important for internal decision-making.

I’ve seen both of these things happen, and I think confusing deliberation and persuasion is a big mistake. These are two indispensable tools in the toolbox of political and social reform, and we need to know when to apply each one.