Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 89-104

  Williams, Laurence ^a   Macnaghten, Phil ^b   Davies, Richard ^c   Curtis, Sarah ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

fracking; framing risk; lay expertise; participation in science policy; public engagement; risk perception; shale gas

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007164359     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515595159     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Andrews IJ, (2013) The carboniferous Bowland Shale gas study: Geology and resource estimation. British Geological Survey for Department of Energy and Climate Change. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226874/BGS_DECC_BowlandShaleGasReport_MAIN_REPORT.pdf (accessed 11 September 2013).
2. Andrews IJ, (2014) The Jurassic shales of the Weald Basin: Geology and shale oil and shale gas resource estimation. British Geological Survey for Department of Energy and Climate Change. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bgs-weald-basin-jurassic-shale-reports (accessed 5 January 2015).
3. Barbour R, (2007) Doing Focus Groups. London: SAGE.
4. Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A, (2014) ‘Fracking’ controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65: 57–67.
5. 2 emissions? Examining recent changes in emissions from the US power sector and traded fossil fuels. A report commissioned by The Co-operative and undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester. Available at: http://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/broderick_and_anderson_2012_impact_of_shale_gas_on_us_energy_and_emissions.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013).
6. Broderick J, Anderson K, Wood R, Gilbert P, Sharmina M, Footitt A. (2011) Shale gas: An updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts. A report commissioned by The Co-operative and undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester. Available at: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/coop_shale_gas_report_update_v3.10.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013).
7. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y, (2009) On Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technological Democracy. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
8. Cameron D, (2013) We cannot afford to miss out on shale gas. The Telegraph, 11 August. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10236664/We-cannot-afford-to-miss-out-on-shale-gas.html (accessed 7 May 2014).
9. Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, (eds) (2009) Reconfiguring Responsibility: Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology. Durham, NC: Durham University.
10. De Rijke K, (2013) Hydraulically fractured: Unconventional gas and anthropology. Anthropology Today 29(2): 13–17.
11. DECC (2012) Written ministerial statement by Edward Davey: Exploration for shale gas (Announcement), 13 December. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/written-ministerial-statement-by-edward-davey-exploration-for-shale-gas (accessed 11 September 2013).
12. DECC (2013a) Resources vs. reserves: What do estimates of shale gas mean? (Note), 27 July. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bowland-shale-gas-study (accessed 21 January 2015).
13. DECC (2013b) New office to look at community benefits for shale gas projects (Press Release), 20 March. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-office-to-look-at-community-benefits-for-shale-gas-projects (accessed 11 September 2013).
14. Energy and Climate Change Committee (ECCC) (2011) Shale gas – Fifth report of session 2010–12. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/795/795.pdf (accessed 7 May 2014).
15. Felt U, Wynne B, Callon M, Gonçalves ME, Jasanoff S, Jepsen M. (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf (accessed 9 May 2014).
16. Gobo G, (2005) Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In: Gobo G, Gubrium J, Seale C, Silverman D, (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 65–79.
17. Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Mayer S, Wynne B, (1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
18. Hajer M, (1996) The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Harrabin R, (2014) Ministers’ shale gas ‘hype’ attacked. BBC News, 12 November. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30013668 (accessed 5 January 2015).
20. House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (2014) 3rd Report of Session 2013-2014 The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/economic-affairs-committee/news/report-publication/ (accessed 2 July 2015).
21. Jaspal R, Nerlich B, (2014) Fracking in the UK press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science 23(3): 348–363.
22. Jaspal R, Turner A, Nerlich B, (2014) Fracking on YouTube: Exploring risks, benefits and human values. Environmental Values 23(5): 501–527.
23. Kearnes M, Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B, (2006) From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture 15: 291–307.
24. McGlade C, Bradshaw M, Anandarajah G, Watson J, Ekins P, (2014) A bridge to a low-carbon future? Modelling the long-term global potential of natural gas – Research report, UKERC. Available at: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/gas-as-a-bridge.html (accessed 5 January 2015).
25. Macnaghten P, (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment & Planning A 41: 23–37.
26. Macnaghten P, Chilvers J, (2014) The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32: 530–548.
27. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B, (2013) Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on geoengineering and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change 23: 465–474.
28. Mason J, (1996) Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE.
29. Mohr A, Raman S, Gibbs B, (2013) Which publics? When? Exploring the policy potential of involving different publics in dialogue around science and technology. A report for Sciencewise. Available at: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/which-publics-when/ (accessed 5 January 2015).
30. Monaghan AA, (2014) The carboniferous shales of the Midland Valley of Scotland: Geology and resource estimation. British Geological Survey for Department of Energy and Climate Change. Available at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/ (accessed 5 January 2015).
31. Obama B, (2014) The state of the union address. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address (accessed 9 May 2014).
32. O’Hara S, Humphrey M, Andersson J, Jaspal R, Nerlich B, Knight W, (2014) Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: Has balcombe bottomed out? Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131787519/public-perceptions-of-shale-gas-in-the-UK-September-2014-pdf (accessed 5 January 2014).
33. Pielke R, (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Potter J, Wetherell M, (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.
35. Rinfret S, Cook J, Pautz M, (2014) Understanding state rulemaking processes: Developing fracking rules in Colorado, New York, and Ohio. Review of Policy Research 31(2): 88–104.
36. Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2012) Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Available at: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013).
37. Steger T, Milicevic M, (2014) One global movement, many local voices: Discourse(s) of the global anti-fracking movement. Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice 15: 1–35.
38. Stevens P, (2012) The ‘Shale Gas Revolution’: Developments and changes. A report by Chatham House. Available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/bp0812_stevens.pdf (accessed 7 May 2014).
39. Stirling A, (2010) From enlightenment to enablement: Opening up choices for innovation. In: López-Claros A, (ed.) The Innovation for Development Report. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–210.Available at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/prfh0/stirling%20chapter%20in%20lopez%20claros%20on%20enablement.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013).
40. Stirling A, (2014) Making choices in the face of uncertainty: Strengthening innovation democracy. In: Annual Report of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser 2014. Innovation: Managing Risk, Not Avoiding It. Evidence and Case Studies, pp. 49–62. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovation-managing-risk-not-avoiding-it (accessed 5 January 2015).
41. Sturgis P, Allum N, (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55–75.
42. TNS BMRB (2014) A report on findings from public dialogue workshops. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-engagement-with-shale-gas-and-oil (accessed 27 January 2015).
43. US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) (2012) Annual Energy Outlook 2012. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf (accessed 7 May 2014).
44. Van Waes A, de Vries A, van Est R, Brom F, (2014) Broadening the debate on shale gas – Guidelines for decision-making based on the Dutch experience. Rathenau Instituut. Available at: http://www.rathenau.nl/en/publications/publication/broadening-the-debate-on-shale-gas.html (accessed 5 January 2015).
45. Welsh I, Wynne B, (2013) Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: Passive objects, incipient threats. Science as Culture 22: 540–566.
46. Wilsdon J, Willis R, (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
47. Wynne B, (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B, (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 44–83.
48. Wynne B, (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.
49. Wynne B, (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology & Society: An International Journal 1: 99–110.
50. Wynveen B, (2011) A thematic analysis of local respondents’ perceptions of Barnett Shale energy development. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 26: 8–31.
51. Yearley S, (2005) Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. London: SAGE.