In this think piece, OSR’s Director General, Ed Humpherson, reflects on the concept of the public sphere, and the implications for statistics and regulators as the public sphere changes.

What is the public sphere?

The concept of the public sphere was theorised in modern times by philosopher Jürgen Habermas, as articulated in his article The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). He described it as a social space where individuals come together on an equal footing to discuss and debate issues of common interest, shaping public opinion through the exercise of public reason. Habermas saw the public sphere as a domain separate from both the state and the private sphere, where critical political debate takes place among citizens.

The concept of the public sphere plays an important role in democratic theory. The public sphere can be thought of as enabling citizens to actively participate in the democratic process by providing a platform for the discussion of political and social issues. A functioning public sphere enables the public to scrutinise government actions and hold authorities accountable. In a democracy, such as the UK, the public sphere should be as participatory and inclusive as possible, and statistics are an indispensable part of this process.

Why does the public sphere matter for OSR?

The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) exists to ensure that official statistics serve the public good. One aspect of its activities is to protect the role statistics play in public debate. OSR does so by setting the principles of how to use and present statistics in a way that allows citizens to access and verify them (intelligent transparency) and by explaining what constitutes misleading use of statistics.

OSR’s notion of the public good sees one of the main purposes of statistics as informing citizens about the nature of the society and economy in which they live. This knowledge enables citizens to form views about competing narratives from political parties and others, and to engage in informed debate.

OSR’s work presupposes the existence of something like a public sphere in which arguments are presented and debated, often drawing on statistics. We also think of our interventions themselves as taking place within the public sphere; we conceive of our work as involving offering clarifications and explanations which add value to, and support, public discussion.

How is the public sphere changing?

Over time, the arenas in which public discussion and debate take place have changed significantly, influenced by various social, political and technological factors. For example, the internet has given rise to a plurality of decentralised and globalised communication platforms and spaces, many of which blur the lines between public and private spheres. This expansion in digital media and the consequences for the public sphere were explored by Habermas in his 2022 article, Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere.

Some of these changes have been highly positive; channels such as social media platforms, blogs and forums have enabled a diverse range of people to participate in public discourse, including those who might have been excluded by editors and publishers of traditional legacy media. Yet there are new dangers, too; commentators worry, for example, that the internet has facilitated the development of ‘echo chambers’, where people primarily hear and reinforce views that align with their own, and in some cases become deeply distrustful of views that do not.

New technologies offer unprecedented opportunities for participation whilst bringing with them new challenges that could undermine their democratic potential. These challenges include tensions relating to:

• Democratisation vs fragmentation: While modern technology allows more people to participate in public debate, opening up voices and positions that might have been silenced in the past, the decentralisation of the internet may also lead to people with different perspectives becoming isolated from one another. This fragmentation, coupled with the various incentive systems of online media platforms, may also lead to polarisation, whereby people become increasingly disposed to an ‘us versus them’ mentality.
• Freedom vs regulation: It is important to respect free expression whilst acknowledging the potential growth of misinformation. The internet has empowered ordinary citizens to become journalists and influencers, sharing news and opinions via blogs, podcasts and social media. This has democratised information but also raises new concerns about accuracy and the accountability of citizen journalists and media influencers – alongside more established concerns about legacy media’s accuracy and accountability.
• Public vs private interests: Social media corporations such as Meta and X, through the design of their algorithms, have a potentially significant influence in shaping the content that people receive and therefore the debates that happen on these platforms. There is some evidence that algorithms aiming to maximise clicks prioritise sensational, emotionally charged or false content that can exacerbate political polarisation. This may make it harder for people to engage in constructive debates.
• Shifts between public and private contexts: Social media has made it particularly easy to share content originally produced in one context (such as a private group chat) across many other contexts. While this can speed up the flow of information across society, it may also create opportunities for misrepresentation and misunderstanding. It can also lead to changing expectations about the nature of discussion in the public sphere, as ‘private’ content comes to be seen as a normal part of the public sphere.

What are the implications of these changes for OSR?

These changes in the way the public engages with information might suggest that the traditional concept of a single public sphere is no longer as helpful as it once was. Instead, it may be useful to think of the contemporary public sphere as fragmented, or pluralised. In this new communicative landscape, it may be more difficult to protect the appropriate interpretation of statistics. This could be due in part to the increased number of channels that statistics can be communicated through and also because of the tailoring of messages to specific groups or individuals. Internet algorithms make it the case that individuals within the same population will not all receive the same messaging, making it hard to oversee the public communication of statistics.

As a greater number of people engage with statistics, there could be an increasing risk of their misuse or misrepresentation. OSR’s remit predominantly covers the use of statistics by government departments, and so this shift is pushing us to consider claims made by individuals and organisations further in the periphery of our spheres of influence. As we move outwards from our core regulatory function, our social licence for regulation may become weaker and we have fewer options for impactful interventions.

Nonetheless, a changing public sphere also presents OSR with opportunities. Developments in how the public accesses and debates information gives public organisations like ours the chance to reach new and wider audiences. For example, in recent years we have seen our regulatory judgements disseminated through, and discussed on, social media. This encourages us to consider different ways of communicating and potentially contributes to our transparency and accountability. As Professor Diane Coyle noted in her recent article on evidence-based policymaking, a reciprocal process of communicating through public engagement has an important role in a functioning public sphere.

OSR has also seen a steady increase in the number of cases raised with us through our casework function. This is perhaps a reflection of OSR’s growing profile, but also shows the UK’s regard for the importance of trustworthy, high-quality and valuable statistics for informed decision making. We recognise that this role for statistics in our society cannot be taken for granted. As highlighted by Demos’ Epistemic Security 2029 paper, securing the UK’s information supply chain is key to preserving a functioning public sphere – and our democracy – through challenging times.

As the UK’s statistics regulator, understanding and serving the public good is at the heart of OSR’s purpose. To do so effectively, reflecting on the public sphere, how it may be evolving and the role of statistics in public discussion and critical political debate seems to be just as, if not more, important than ever before.