‘Explore, refine, deliberate’: A methodology to lean into tensions in dialogues about complicated and contentious technologies

New Zealand has effectively banned genetic engineering for the past 20 years but is under pressure to consider genetic technologies to address biosecurity threats devastating its rare and vulnerable ecosystems. This makes the potential use of genetic technologies to support invasive species management in New Zealand an area ripe for public dialogue and deliberation. Such an engagement should involve a diverse range of people, because innovations may challenge people’s values and affect their visions for the future. However, such conversations present enormous challenges. First, they are technically complicated, leading people to doubt their own legitimacy in being able to contribute. Second, they are complex; people question their own power in the decision-making process. Third, they are contentious; people are sceptical about the trustworthiness of any deliberative process. In this context, our team of social scientists ran a broad national dialogue on genetic technologies’ use for conservation purposes to inform science and policy about what safe and responsible genetic innovation means for New Zealanders. We present the methodology developed for these public conversations. The process has three phases: explore , refine and deliberate (ERD). This methodology works as an iterative process that is inherently responsive to both public perspectives and realistic ecological and technological possibilities. In this article, we explain each stage of the ERD process and discuss its rationale. We examine how the process addressed the three science communication challenges identified above when engaging people in complicated, complex and contested science. Our methodology engaged 376 participants in 38 engagement events, with 43 focus groups deliberating on 69 scenarios. This methodology provides a robust process for capturing the nuances in people’s decision-making and enabling greater public participation in contested issues that affect people’s lives. We argue that it is well suited for dialogues and deliberations on socially complex science and technology issues.