Quack! Quack? Hunting for Social Trust in Arkansas

Austin Booth of the the Arkansas Fish and Game and Commission talks breaking bread with duck hunters.

Introduction from Eric:

Today we bring you a story from the deep red state of Arkansas.

I first saw this story in 2022 article on fivethirtyeight.com titled “Why Being Anti-Science is Now Part of Many Rural Americans’ Identity.” The article leads with the community engagement work of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC).

The AGFC was implementing management changes to their “green tree reservoir” natural areas in response to shifting climatic conditions. These changes directly impacted their primary constituency of rural conservative duck hunters — a demographic increasingly distrustful of experts and top-down decision making.

You can probably imagine a million ways the AGFC’s community engagement process could go off the rails.

What the AGFC did next was unusual and courageous. They eschewed the expert-in-front-of-the room approach to community engagement and instead convened a series of large community dinners. Hundreds of people showed up to break bread alongside staff and commission members. Folks ate, talked, and no one left without being heard or having their questions answered. Mission accomplished.

They didn’t use the fancy academic terminology, but the AGFC intuitively centered their engagement process around the social psychology concepts of Intergroup Contact Theory. Intergroup Contact Theory is the science behind how groups bridge their differences and cultivate social trust. It has two components:

1. Creating conditions that bridge different identity groups by softening “us vs. them” positioning. In this case, the two groups are government employees and local citizens.

1. Cultivating a shared “super-ordinate” identity. In this case, a shared place-based identity (rural Arkansan) with a mutual interested in long-term stewardship of public hunting grounds.

The secret mechanisms residing at the heart of Intergroup Contact Theory are two emotional conditions: lowering anxiety and encouraging empathy or perspective taking.

Do you need a refresher on Intergroup Contact and how to incorporate it into community engagement? You can start with this previous Answer is Community post and then work your way through the subsequent 4-part series.

Last month, I reached out to AGFC Director Austin Booth to learn more about how they pulled it all off. What could we learn?

Below is an abbreviated and edited version of our conversation.

Take special note of what steps the AGFC took to lower anxiety and encourage empathy and perspective taking (hint: FOOD!). And keep an eye out for the symbols and rituals that helped cultivate a sense of shared identity.

I love this project because it exemplifies the creativity we need to retool our engagement practices to match our polarized and atomized times. And it shows how social psychology can inform these changes.

It also shows that we don’t need fancy new online engagement tools or sophisticated plans. AGFC’s approach is unabashedly old-school. We are still wired for belonging, connection, and collaboration, accompanied by the simple act of breaking bread together.

Enjoy!

---

The Answer is Community (TAIC):  I've never been to Arkansas. Could you give me a sense of the communities that you're working with?

Austin: Yeah, sure. To start, over the past 100 years, our green tree reservoirs have held water in bottomland hardwood forests through a series of dams and levees. The reason we've done that is to create hunting opportunities for duck hunters. And over the course of the past 100 years, as we've artificially held this water, the weather patterns have changed, and it has put the forest health conditions in extremely critical condition.

So these green tree reservoirs have three primary constituencies: the local duck hunters that like to hunt there; the non-local hunters that include residents and non-residents; and the outdoor economies that these green tree reservoir support.

TAIC: So how do these constituencies perceive government agencies like the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)? I know there is skepticism towards government experts, but I also understand that a lot of the AGFC staff are also hunters. Is there already some shared group identity between your constituents and your agency?

Austin: At all our public meetings, I would start by introducing senior staff and key decision makers within the Agency. And I would say, “All of us, myself and everybody that I just introduced, are all duck hunters. And we all depend on the same kind of public opportunity that you do.”  

I would also close out our meetings by saying, “We all want the same thing. And that’s for our grandkids to tell us what it is like for them to hunt these places. Not for us to tell our grandkids what it was like for us.”

Establishing that kind of shared identity is really important to us.

TAIC: Was there an actual decision for which you wanted public input? Or was your goal more about awareness and support for what you were already going to do?

Austin: Yeah, we were seeking general input about how we could do our project better. Where were the gaps in our information? What are the things that we have done in the past that have questioned the trust that people have in the agency? And how do we make sure we execute this project in a way that restores that trust?

TAIC: Those hunters probably know your lands better than you do, right?

Austin: Yes, yes, that's a great observation.

TAIC: The way you engaged the public in these reservoir projects is compelling. Rather than an expert-in-front-of-the-room approach, instead you hosted a series of dinners that created an environment for face-to-face contact. Why did you decide to do it that way?

Austin: I think oftentimes when it comes to government communication, you have to be realistic about what people think about government in 2024.

For whatever reason, I am of the belief that there's something really important and human about breaking bread with people.

I wanted to make that a staple of what we were doing. Yes, we needed to cover the technicalities of the project. But I really wanted to start it with a meal so that they could get to know our staff in a more organic way. I wanted them to know that they hunt the same way that we hunt. That they talk the same way that we talk. That we might even have people that went to high school together. Things like that. So that was really the motivation.

Also, I said to my commissioners and senior staff, “If you are not actively engaged in conversation with people, then I want you to be walking around asking, ‘Can I get you some more sweet tea? Are you finished with your plate?’”

So the dinners not only provided an opportunity for meaningful connection, but it also gave our agency an opportunity to embody our mission by literally serving people.

TAIC: What were you worried about going wrong with a traditional engagement process?

Austin: That people feel like they're being talked ”to” and not “with.” That people will question our motives about where we're coming from. And that they would leave without a shared sense of identity.

TAIC: Could you share some specifics about the event? Was there an introduction? Were there information displays? Particularly, were there things that you did that to lessen anxiety or encourage people to share perspectives?

Austin: Yeah, we did a few things.

For anybody that had a meaningful role in the agency, I had all of us wear the same color shirt with the AGFC logo on it.  I said, “No suits and ties. We're wearing these Game and Fish shirts. We're wearing jeans.  And we’re wearing cowboy boots.” These things are super casual and are relatable to the people that we're going to be engaging with.

No suits and ties. We're wearing Game and Fish shirts. We're wearing jeans.  And we’re wearing cowboy boots.

Second, after everyone was settled and signed-in, I opened the meetings with two things.

First, I would introduce myself and go around the room and introduce all of my staff. And I would even go one step further and say, “if you have questions about forest management, you need to talk to Rob -- he is our chief forester.” And “if you have questions about wetlands management, you need to talk to Buck -- he runs our wetlands program.”

And the second thing is I said was, “What we're gonna do now is we're gonna pray. We're gonna thank God for the food. We're gonna say the Pledge of Allegiance. And then for the next hour, I just want y'all to eat and talk. And I'll come back in an hour, when I will give the message tonight and tell you a little bit more or about this project.”

And then my parting shot before everybody started eating was to say, “No one will leave this room tonight with a question unanswered. Talk to these people and get your questions answered. I will open up the floor for Q&A when we’re done eating, but no one will leave here without getting their questions answered. And if we can't get you an answer tonight, then we will follow up with you soon.”

So, if you pull all those pieces apart, you’ll find there’s a lot in there for the participants.

One, they see that the AGFC wants to know how to stay in touch with me. Two, they personally know who to talk to if they have a question. Three, they see people dressed in a way that they can relate to. And lastly, they understand that the AGFC knows them well enough that saying a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance before we start is something that's culturally very important to them.

TAIC: How was the room set up?

Austin: We had the anchor of the room towards the front, where the flag and a microphone was set up and a projector with a screen. I was adamant that I did not want a stage, because a stage literally just creates an environment where you're talking down to people.  So there was no stage. And then we had a bunch of round tables where people could sit down and eat. And then around the room we had a bunch of maps and other graphics with some background on our forest health conditions and our proposed plan.

TAIC: You did this multiple times correct? How many people were at each one?

Austin: Yeah, we did it four times in 2021. Participation varied -- the lowest level of participation we had was about 75 people and the highest was 200 to 300.

TAIC: How did it go?

Austin:  They all went really well. For the most part, people left with the right sentiment, which from my perspective was, “We don't necessarily like this, but we understand, and we're going to watch and see how this goes moving forward.”

TAIC: Tell me about long term impacts of these meetings. What kinds of dividends have you seen between the AGFC and its constituents? 

Austin: Yeah, so this whole initiative has shown us that, while we may have done a good job in 2021, over the past few decades we’ve taken our foot off the gas when it came to engaging our constituents. It's one thing to offer a good experience to people, but it's another thing for people to feel invested.

Now, we recognize that we have a long way to go when it comes to engaging these constituencies in an enduring and meaningful way. So, one result is that I've created an Advisory Council. It’s basically a group sanctioned by the agency where we give local stakeholders a seat at the table. It helps them understand what we're doing and provides us more proactive input from their communities.

TAIC: A deep distrust of experts and authority has lodged itself in certain groups all across the political spectrum and in every corner of country. You’ve taken an atypical but successful approach to engaging people in this context of mistrust. For others practicing community engagement, what advice do you have?

Austin: I hope this doesn't sound trite, but it’s ensuring that people: #1, understand your motives; and #2, feel from you a sincere and deep care about what it is that they want. This makes all the difference and that takes a lot of work.

And like we learned, you really can't wait till you have news or project to deliver to start thinking about that. It should be a pillar of how you’re serving your communities. And that should lead us to do this work in a constant way, not as an as-needed way, because at that point you're already be behind the times.

TAIC: Thank you, Austin.

Austin: Thank you!

---

DO YOU HAVE A STORY TO SHARE?

Do you have a great example of how a community engagement process helped a community restitch its social fabric, or go from “Us vs Them” to “We.” Or an example of how it went off the rails? I’m collecting stories, and I’d love to talk to you. Please reach out.

---

WHAT ELSE I’M READING

“Why We Got It So Wrong” by David Brooks in the New York Times

No doubt many of you are casting about for insightful takes on what happened with this year’s election. One of my favorites comes from David Brooks of the New York Times, the conservative commentator turned community-building evangelical. In my last post I referenced his pre-election piece “This Election is Happening Too Soon,” which is still powerfully relevant. His follow-up “Why We Got It So Wrong” is also worth your time.

Undivided: The Quest for Racial Solidarity in an American Church by Hahrie Han

Political scientist Hahrie Han was curious about the unusual success of a 2016 initiative in Cincinnati raising taxes to benefit poor, Black communities. She discovered its success was driven by a mostly white Christian mega-church and the participants of its anti-racism program called “Undivided.” In her latest book, Han follows the story of four participants of the Undivided program, and deftly extracts powerful lessons for anti-racism and community power. One of the best books I’ve read this year from a rising star in the field. Check it out!