Releasing New Data on Civic Language Perceptions

Today, PACE is excited to release new data that seeks to understand people’s perceptions of the language associated with civic engagement and democracy work.

With the state of the world so precarious and the threats to democracy so real, there is no shortage of areas to focus our energy to strengthen democracy and civic engagement. So why focus on language?

As a PACE Member recently reflected: “Language doesn’t matter. Except when it absolutely matters.” When we take a moment to reflect on this, a world of questions and considerations emerge. When are we so focused on choosing and couching the “right words” that our messages become diluted or lose meaning? When do we insist on using particular words that don’t resonate with others (or mean something different to them)? When do we use uncertainty about language as an excuse to not have the conversation at all? Are there ever really “right words” that speak to everyone in the ways we hope they will? At the same time, when are we not thoughtful enough about word choice that we seem glib, disrespectful, out-of-touch, or even alienating?

Over the last few years, a lot of attention has been paid to the ways that Americans are polarized and whether we’re better off divided. Those explorations are important, and also, we couldn’t help but wonder about the role language might be playing, especially related to challenges of trust, legitimacy, belonging, and agency in our democracy and civil society. At best, are we talking past each other? Or worse, are we furthering divisions, disillusionment, or disengagement?

PACE embarked on an inquiry to explore this very question in 2019, which included a quantitative survey and a series of qualitative focus groups to gain broad understandings about the resonance of certain words and phrases. The 2019 project yielded important findings, but the project’s size, scope, and purpose was intentionally limited as it was an initial exploration. After that project, funders would ask us some version of this question: “I see the data, but what do I do about the disconnect between how I use civic engagement and democracy words and how Americans use them? What should I say instead? Can you give me guidance on what language does resonate?” We didn’t have answers–and perhaps we never fully can–but it still felt insufficient to not have a response to such important questions.

Fast forward to 2021. In a short two years, America experienced COVID-19, the murder of George Floyd, the 2020 Presidential Election, and the January 6th Capitol insurrection–just to name a few of the health, economic, racial, and political crises America endured in seeming parallel. With so much shifting for Americans, we felt an urgency to understand the ways that civic language may have shifted, too, and what we might do about it.

So we picked back up the inquiry we started in 2019 and built a plan to refresh, deepen, and expand our learning. Today, the Civic Language Perceptions Project has three phases:

1. The data + exploration phase (Winter 2021 — Spring 2022) aims to collect data to understand the extent and nuances of the disconnect. The primary learning question is: What disconnect(s) exist between the language of the civic philanthropy field and the rest of the world?
2. The analysis + validation phase (Spring 2022 — Fall 2022) aims to interrogate the data further– including through robust qualitative analysis– and embark on a democratized “meaning making” process. The primary learning question is: What does the data tell us and what do we think it means?
3. The reflection + recommendation phase (Fall 2022 — Winter 2022) aims to consider what we do or recommend based on what we learn. The primary learning question is: What do we do about the disconnect, why, and with whom?

Today, we are excited to release what we have to share from the first phase–the data and validation phase–with our field and the public. We share this data with two important notes:

First, we want to emphasize that we see this data release as just the first part of a larger effort. Over the next few months, we will be immersing ourselves in the quantitative data and supporting others in their exploration of the data as we identify findings and develop recommendations–more on that later. At this stage in the project’s development, we ask that you resist the urge to interpret the data itself as a recommendation. We know there is more nuance and meaning behind these numbers that needs to be told–and qualitative analysis is necessary to expand its meaning–and the three-phase approach to our inquiry is how we intend to get there. Today’s release of the data creates the foundation for that deep and important work to build upon, but it is one step in a larger inquiry process.

Second, PACE is concerned about advancing the ideals of liberal democracy within philanthropy and across society, and to do that, we need to know where certain people stand in relation to them. This project is not designed to assess whether peoples’ perceptions or associations related to these terms or concepts are “right or wrong” or “good or bad.” It is designed for us to understand what those perceptions are, and how these words resonate (or don’t) for those for whom advancing these ideals is important. Our intent with this project is not about identifying “no-no words,” silencing anyone, or asking anyone to change their vocabulary. Our intent is to find ways to more effectively advance pro-democracy ideals and values in service of creating a more perfect union that is more representative and more inclusive of more people.

The Survey

In the fall of 2021, PACE partnered with Citizen Data, a social impact insights company that specializes in serving as a data marketplace for the public interest. With research support from the Rita Allen Foundation and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, PACE and Citizen Data fielded a nationally representative survey of 5,000 registered voters between November 21–28, 2021 to poll 21 terms commonly used in “civic engagement and democracy work.”

A list of the 21 terms/concepts tested in the expanded Civic Language Perceptions Project

To be honest, PACE started with a list of many, many more words, but surveys have limitations. It was a heart-wrenching task to narrow the list to only 21 terms for the survey. These words were selected because they are used a lot in our field, but are usually not consistently defined in the same ways. They are mostly not literal things or actions (like “voting”). And, importantly, they’re not “just words”– they are largely conceptual ideals and values and mean many things to many people. They can be a little academic, and not terms that many people choose to use for themselves in their everyday lives (for example, our 2019 project uncovered lots of people use terms like “service” and “volunteering”). Almost by definition, these terms are open for wide personal interpretation, which is what makes communicating about them– particularly with diverse audiences– especially challenging.

With these terms as the foundation, the survey measured many details of Americans’ relationship to civic language and its concepts, including:

• Their personal perceptions of these terms. Participants could express positive, negative, or neutral feelings towards them, or indicate if they were unfamiliar with the term.
• Their association of these terms with certain groups. For example, participants could indicate if they associate specific terms with conservatives, progressives/liberals, or both; people with a college education or not; working, middle, or upper-class people; and/or specific racial groups.
• Their sentiments towards groups. Participants could indicate their personal feelings towards those groups, which gives us a way to dig into the nuances related to Americans’ relationship to civic languages’ messengers. For example, if someone likes a term and associates that term with a certain group but has negative feelings towards the group–that feels like something important to explore.

In addition, the survey collected demographic data (race, age, gender, household income, religion, education level, political ideology, political party, type of community, and Census region) and experience and attitude data (whether they had civic education, how they voted for president in 2020, where they get their news, and what activities they think are important to ensure democracy works like voting, volunteering, serving on a jury, military or national service, etc.).

The Data

The result is 16,000 pages of data (we thought that was a hyperbolic number, but Citizen Data assures us it is literal). The survey created an incredibly rich dataset that provides us with endless opportunities to explore Americans’ relationship to civic messages and messengers. To make the data accessible, especially to non-statisticians, the data has been uploaded into an interactive dashboard with functionality to see topline data, as well as to run two-way and three-way crosstabs.

This graph shows how different racial groups rate the word “civic engagement.” For example, of all the people who took the survey and identified as Black, 33.3% gave the term a positive rating. The dashboard allows you to switch the axis to show the inverse graph: race by civic engagement or civic engagement by race, which shows a slightly different angle.

For example, here are the types of things you can explore in the dashboard:

Example 1

• Topline: Perception of the term “Civic Engagement”
• Two-Way Crosstab: Racial groups’ perception of the term “Civic Engagement” (shown above)
• Three-Way Crosstab: Perception of the term “Civic Engagement” broken down by race and by 2020 presidential candidate choice

Example 2

• Topline: Definition of “Democracy”
• Two-Way Crosstab: Definition of “Democracy” broken down by perception of the term “Patriotism”
• Three-Way Crosstab: Definition of “Democracy” broken down by perception of the term “Patriotism” and by age range

Example 3

• Topline: Groups that the term “Citizen” is associated with
• Two-Way Crosstab: “Citizen” associated with conservatives by gender
• Three-Way Crosstab: “Citizen” associated with conservatives by gender and by if they took a civics or American government class in high school

We know there is a lot of interest in this data from particular angles, so to make the data even more accessible, PACE developed an infographic for each of the 21 words surveyed, sharing the overall breakdown of perceptions, the top five groups most associated with each term, and the racial, age, religious, and income groups that gave each term the highest rating in our survey. You can find the full suite of infographics here, and we will be expanding the suite of infographics on an on-going basis over the next few months.

The (Early) Findings

So what do we make of all this data? Well, that is technically the work of the next phase of this project, when we turn to interrogating the data further through robust analysis and a democratized “meaning making” process. But both the PACE and Citizen Data teams have been in the data over the last many weeks, and some early findings stand out to us, even at this stage of the project.

First, the Citizen Data team developed a memo about their key takeaways from the survey. Specifically, they note:

• The majority of commonly used phrases in democracy and civic engagement work are generally viewed as more liberal than conservative. Terms that were viewed as more liberal than conservative include (but are not limited to) Social Justice, Activism, Diversity, and Racial Equity. Terms viewed as more conservative than liberal were Citizen, Liberty, and Justice, though they are also viewed positively across political lines.
• One point of possible “disconnect” includes language seen positively based on age group; those over age 65 viewed Democracy and Patriotism more positively than those under 34. The inverse was true for Activism, with those under 34 having greater positivity toward it than those over 65.
• Terms that were seen as most positive across demographics include Unity, Liberty, Citizen, Justice, Democracy, and Patriotism. The terms perceived most negatively include Privilege, followed by Social Justice.
• Respondents were also able to note if they were unfamiliar with a word or had no association with that term. Terms that were most often met with unfamiliarity or no association include Pluralism, Civic Health, Civil Society, and Civic Infrastructure.
• 68% recall taking a civics or American government class in high school. Those who had civic education were 11% more likely to be familiar with the various terms tested than those who did not.

In addition, PACE noticed and was surprised by a few points, which we think reinforce that there are a lot more nuanced story-lines in the data to explore, which we’ll be doing through deep dive sessions over the next two months (more on that below):

• When we started this project, we had a hypothesis that civic engagement and democracy words would code liberal (this is something we often hear across the field). While the data supports that hypothesis, it’s worth noting that conservatives also had largely positive perceptions of many of the terms, just not at the same level as liberals. For example, 10 of the 21 words surveyed had 50% or more of very- and somewhat-conservative respondents giving a positive perception (for liberals/progressives, 16 of 21 received over 50% positivity).
• There seems to be something interesting related to the words people are unfamiliar with. For example, 2.8% of survey participants were unfamiliar with the term “social justice” but 5.3% were unfamiliar with “liberty” and 5.2% were unfamiliar with “unity.” We might have expected a word and concept like unity to be more familiar to Americans, especially given its frequent use in political and social discourse recently. Perhaps because of the recent attention to the term, we also anticipated “unity” might have more of a mixed reception, but it was the most positive term across groups, by far with a 70.3% positive perception (including 68.2% of those identifying as “somewhat or very conservative” and 77.5% of those identifying as “somewhat or very liberal”).
• While “privilege” had the most negative overall rating of all terms, young people 18–34 gave it the highest positive rating of age groups (25.1%) and positive ratings decreased as age increased. Liberals, who are one of the groups most likely to be associated with the term “privilege,” gave it a 17.3% positive perception rating (when combining “somewhat” and “very” liberal identification), while those who identify as “somewhat or very conservative” had a 25.8% positive rating.

Lastly, we have started our journey to look at the 2019 data next to the 2021 data to see what might have shifted in Americans’ relationship to civic language. As an early finding, we share two graphs, which represent how Americans define democracy and civic engagement:

Full text of response options: — A system or structure of government that is “of, by, and for the people” — An ideal of “self-government”, meaning that people have the right and responsibility to have a voice in government decisions as well as other political and non-political activities across society — A form of representation in government that ensures the voices of those least likely to have access to political power are prioritized in policies and decisions

Full text of response options: — Participating in actions that involve government and intend to influence the way government functions (such as voting, attending public meetings, contacting representatives, attending marches or rallies, political involvement) — Participating in actions that allow people to make their communities better, but may not directly involve government or politics (such as volunteerism and service, helping neighbors, giving to charity, joining community groups) — Both (that is, civic engagement is government/political involvement AND also voluntary/charitable associations)

What’s Next?

As PACE looks ahead to the next phases of this project, the primary aim is to interrogate the data and support the civic field in making meaning from it. To do that, we are coordinating a few efforts over the spring and summer months:

• Creative Mini-Grants Program. PACE is offering $500 stipends to support people and organizations interested in analyzing the data and creating something customized with it (such as an infographic, blog/article, a community discussion, or more!) that advances their work and helps the civic field learn. We see this as a way to “democratize” the meaning-making process of the data and ensure multiple voices and perspectives are finding and uplifting insights. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis until all funds are distributed. Have an idea for a creative mini-grant? Submit an application.
• Deep Dive Sessions. Because survey participants were asked about their demographics and their experiences, we can specifically look at various “cuts” of the data to explore for insights. From April to June 2022, PACE will host a series of “deep dive” sessions to explore the impact of race, religion, gender, political party and ideology, and civic education on Americans’ perceptions and associations of civic language. At each session, we will provide new insights, release infographics related to the topic, and create space for discussion. Want to join a deep dive session? Register today.
• Focus Groups. To complement the quantitative data this first phase provided, PACE will be hosting a series of focus groups to learn–qualitatively–about Americans’ relationship to civic language. We believe this is a critical input to crafting recommendations later this year. This effort is in development; more details are forthcoming.
• Mini-Papers. PACE is particularly interested in making learning actionable through this project and will release “mini-papers” on an ongoing, rolling basis. Taken together, these mini-papers could be considered chapters of a larger report, but each will stand on its own as an input to the question: What disconnect(s) exist between the language of the civic philanthropy field and the rest of the world? This effort is in development; more details are forthcoming. Have a suggestion for a mini-paper topic? Let us know or apply for a mini-grant to explore it yourself.

Throughout all of these efforts, PACE maintains its commitment to “learn out loud” and share its findings, insights, and reflections with the civic field. Keep an eye on our Medium page, Office of Citizen, as well as Twitter for updates. Additionally, we plan to host an event in the fall to share what we’ve learned in the “analysis and validation” phase before we start to develop recommendations.

Final Word

Perhaps the words we use don’t matter, or perhaps they matter more than we know. The Civic Language Perceptions Project gives us the opportunity to explore that and make our own assessments. We invite all who share our mission to advance liberal democracy’s principles, values, and norms to dig into the data via the dashboard and infographics and join us in the next phase of the project.

PACE appreciates the work of the entire team at Citizen Data, our polling partner, for bringing this process to life. We also appreciate the many partners and friends who gave advice and feedback during the development process. The first phase of the 2022 CLPP is made possible with support from the Rita Allen Foundation, the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

To learn more about the Civic Language Perceptions Project, visit www.PACEfunders.org/Language. Questions? Email us at Language@PACEfunders.org.