Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 497-507

  Barvosa, Edwina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Deliberative democracy; Democratization; Environmental science; Fracking; Implicit bias; Legitimacy; Public engagement; Science governance

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DEMOCRATIZATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HYDRAULIC FRACTURING; LEGISLATION; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ACCESS; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84977111390     PISSN: 21906483     EISSN: 21906491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13412-015-0340-y     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Anzaldúa G (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: the new mestiza. Aunt Lute Books, San Francisco
2. Banaji MR, Greenwald AG (2013) Blind spot: hidden biases of good people. Delacorte Press, New York
3. Bargh J (1989) Conditional automaticity: varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In: Uleman J, Bargh J (eds) Unintended thought. Guilford Press, New York, pp 3–51
4. Bargh JA, Chaiken S, Govender R, Pratto F (1992) The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 62:893–912
5. Barnett M (2014) Denton’s ban won’t stop fracking permits, railroad commission chairwoman says. Dallas Morning News. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20141107-dentons-ban-wont-stop-fracking-permits-railroad-commission-chairwoman-says.ece. Accessed 20 November 2014
6. Bartels LM (2008) Unequal democracy: the political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press, Princeton
7. Barvosa E (2008) Wealth of selves: multiple identities, mestiza consciousness, and the subject of politics. Texas A&M University Press, College Station
8. Breckler SJ (1994) A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educ Psychol Meas 54:350–365
9. Butler C, Demski C, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Spence A (2014) Public values for energy futures: framing, indeterminacy and policy making. Working paper. UKERC, London
10. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory. Sage Press, Los Angeles
11. Clark S, Teachout W (2012) Slow democracy: rediscovering community, bridging decision making back home. Chelsea Green Pub, White River Junction
12. Daley DM (2007) Citizen groups and scientific decision making: does public participation influence environmental outcomes? J Public Anal Manage 26:349–368
13. Daley DM (2008) Public participation and environmental policy: what factors shape state agency’s public participation provisions. Rev Policy Res 25:21–35
14. Darrah TH, Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner NR, Poreda RJ (2014) Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales. PNAS 111:14076–14081
15. Davies G (2006) The sacred and the profane: biotechnology, rationality, and public debate. Environ Plan 38:423–443
16. Davies S, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P (2009) All things weird and scary: nanotechnology, theology, and cultural resources. Cult Relig 10:201–220
17. DeLeon P (1997) Democracy and the policy sciences. State University of New York Press, Albany
18. Delgado A, Kjølberg KL, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in sts encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20:826-45
19. Famiglietti J (2013) Sucking California dry. The Los Angeles Times, 23 Sept. A. 11.
20. Flax J (1990) Thinking fragments: psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary west. University of California Press, Berkeley
21. Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. J Philos 68:5–20
22. Fung A (2006) Democratizing the policy process. In: Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (eds) The oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 667–685
23. Goodin RE (2008) Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
24. Habermas J (1990) Moral consciousness and communicative action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge
25. Hacker JS, Pierson P (2010) Winner-take-all politics: how Washington made the rich richer-and turned its back on the middle class. Simon & Schuster, New York
26. Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
27. Hall T (2004) Authorizing policy. Ohio State University Press, Columbus
28. Harthorn B, Shearer C, Rogers J (2011) Exploring ambivalence: techno-enthusiasm and skepticism in nanotech deliberations. In: Zülsdorf TB, Coenen C, Ferrari A, Fiedeler U, Milburn C, Wienroth M (eds) Quantum engagements: social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 75–88
29. Hawken P (2007) Blessed unrest. Viking, New York
30. Healy J (2012) For farms in the west, oil wells are thirsty rivals. The New York Times
31. Healy J (2014) Battle over fracking poses threat to Colorado democrats. The New York Times, A12
32. Healy J (2015) Heavyweight responses to local fracking bans, The New York Times, A11
33. Irwin A (2008) STS perspectives on science governance. In: Hackett EJ (ed) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 543–607
34. Irwin A, Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding science? the public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
35. Irwin A, Elgaard Jensen T, Jones KE (2012) The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Soc Stud Sci 43:118–135
36. Jasanoff S (2011) Quality control and peer review in advisory science. In: Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) The politics of scientific advice: institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–35
37. Jonas K, Diehl M, Brömer P (1997) Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. J Exp Soc Psychol 33:190–210
38. Jones JM (2014) Record high 42% of Americans identify as independents. Gallup, January 8.
39. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar Strause, Giroux, New York
40. Kaplan K (1972) On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement. Psychol Bull 77:361–372
41. Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142
42. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S (2000) On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology 34:283
43. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23:465–474
44. Maio GR, Bell DW, Esses VM (1996) Ambivalence and persuasion: the processing of messages about immigrant groups. J Exp Soc Psychol 32:513–536
45. Mullainathan S, Shafir E (2013) Scarcity: why having too little means so much. Henry Holt and Company, New York
46. Newport F (2013) Congressional approval sinks to record low. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165809/congressional-approval-sinks-record-low.aspx. Accessed 20 November 2014
47. Oreskes N (2011) Reconciling representation with reality: unitisation as an example for science and public policy. In: Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) The politics of scientific advice: institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 36–53
48. Parkhill KA, Demski, Butler C, Spence A, Pidgeon N (2013) Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability. Synthesis report. UKERC, London
49. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210
50. Pidgeon N, Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spences A (2014) Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. PNAS 111:13606–13613
51. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2006) Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Anal 26:199–209
52. Renn O, Webler T, Weidermann PM (1995) Fairness and competence in citizenship participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordecht
53. Rosenberg S (2007) Deliberation, participation and democracy: can the people govern? Palgrave, New York
54. Rudel TK (1980) Social responses to commodity shortages: the 1973–1974 gasoline crisis. Hum Ecol 8:193–212
55. Scott W (1966) Brief report: measures of cognitive structure. Multivar Behav Res 1:391–395
56. Shackley S, Wynne B, Waterton C (1996) Imagine complexity: the past, present and future potential of complex thinking. Futures 28:201–225
57. Stiglitz J (2012) The price of inequality: how today’s divided society endangers our future. Norton, New York
58. Stirling A (2010) Keep it complex. Nature 23:1029–1031
59. Thompson DF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annu Rev Pol Sci 11:497–520
60. US Office of the President (2004) National nanotechnology initiative—strategic plan, December. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington D.C
61. US EPA, Office of the Inspector General (2013) Response to congressional inquiry regarding the EPA’s emergency order to the range resources gas drilling Company, Report No. 14-P-0044
62. Vaessen J, Leeuw FL (2010) Mind the gap: perspectives on policy evaluation and the social sciences. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
63. Williams L, Macnaghten P, Davies R, Curtis S (2015) Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydrolic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Underst of Sci:1–17
64. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
65. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2:111–127
66. Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szersynski B, Wynne B (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage Publications, London, pp 44–83
67. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220