Discourse over a contested technology on Twitter: A case study of hydraulic fracturing

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 105-120

  Hopke, Jill E ^a   Simis, Molly ^b  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

hydraulic fracturing; shale gas; shale oil; social media; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007190579     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662515607725     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Baym NK, boyd d, (2012) Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(3): 320–329.
2. Boudet H, Clarke CE, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf R, Leiserowitz A, (2014) “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65: 57–67.
3. boyd D, Golder S, Lotan G, (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In: Proceedings from 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Kauai, HI, 6 January. New York, NY: IEEE Press.
4. Brossard D, Nisbet MC, (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion 19(1): 24–52.
5. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, (2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(40): 40–41.
6. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y, (2010) On Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technological Democracy. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
7. Christopherson S, Rightor N, (2012) How shale gas extraction affects drilling localities: Lessons for regional and city policymakers. Journal of Town and City Management 4(2): 350–368.
8. Colleoni E, Rozza A, Arvidsson A, (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–332.
9. CREDO Action (n.d.) Tell Governor Cuomo: Don’t encourage fracking by lifting New York’s ban on liquefied natural gas infrastructure. Available at: http://act.credoaction.com/letter/ny_lng_comments/?sp_ref=15867482.4.1002.t.0.2&source=tw_sp
10. Davis C, Hoffer K, (2012) Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences 45(3): 221–421.
11. Engelder T, (2011) Should fracking stop? Counterpoint: No, it’s too valuable. Nature 477: 271–275.
12. Ferrar KJ, Kriesky J, Christen CL, Marshall LP, Malone SL, Sharma RK. (2013) Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19(2): 104–112.
13. Flash Eurobarometer 360 (2013) Attitudes of Europeans towards air quality. European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_360_en.pdf
14. Food and Water Watch (2013) Activists on six continents to urge global leaders to ban fracking, 18 October. Available at: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/activists-on-six-continents-to-urge-global-leaders-to-ban-fracking/
15. Fraser N, (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: Calhoun C, (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge; London: MIT Press, pp. 109–142.
16. Friedland LA, Hove T, Rojas H, (2006) The networked public sphere. Javnost: The Public 13(4): 5–26.
17. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J, (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739–755.
18. Global Frackdown (n.d.) Global Frackdown2! An international day to stop fracking. Available at: http://www.globalfrackdown.org/org-endorsement-form/
19. Grimmer J, Stewart BM, (2013) Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21(3): 1–31.
20. Hayes AF, (2005) Statistical Methods for Communication Science. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
21. Hess D, Breyman S, Campbell N, Martin B, (2008) Science, technology, and social movements. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge; London: The MIT Press, pp. 473–498.
22. Honeycutt C, Herring SC, (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In: Proceedings from 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Los Alamitos, CA, 5–8 January. New York, NY: IEEE Press.
23. Hopkins DJ, King G, (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 229–247.
24. Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, (2011) Should fracking stop? Point: Yes, it’s too high risk. Nature 477: 271–273.
25. Jaspal R, Nerlich B, (2014) Fracking in the UK press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science 23(3): 348–363.
26. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G, (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Natural Nanotechnology 4(2): 87–90. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v4/n2/suppinfo/nnano.2008.341_S1.html
27. Kear AR, (2011) Unconventional politics of unconventional gas: Environmental reframing and policy change. Unpublished PhD, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
28. Krauss C, (2013) Exports of American natural gas may fall short of high hopes. New York Times, 4 January. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/business/energy-environment/exports-of-us-gas-may-fall-short-of-high-hopes.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
29. Latour B, (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30. Lotan G, Graeff E, Ananny M, Gaffney D, Pearce I, (2011) The revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. International Journal of Communication 5: 1375–1405.
31. Luers A, Kroodsma D, (2014) Science communication in the post-expert digital age. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 95(24): 203–204.
32. Matsa KE, Mitchell A, (2014) 8 key takeaways about social media and news. Pew Research Journalism Project, 26 March. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media-and-news/
33. Mazur A, (2014) How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 8 August. DOI: 10.1177/0963662514545311.
34. Mitchell A, Guskin E, (2013) Twitter news consumers: Young, mobile and educated. Pew Research Journalism Project, 4 November. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2013/11/04/twitter-news-consumers-young-mobile-and-educated/
35. Murthy D, (2013) Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
36. National Science Board (2014) Chapter 7: Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, vol. NSB 14-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
37. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2012, March 19) As gas prices pinch, support for oil and gas production grows: Those aware of tracking favor its use. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-12%20Energy%20release.pdf
38. Pew Research Internet Project (2014) Social networking fact sheet. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/
39. Runge KK, Yeo SK, Cacciatore M, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos M. (2013) Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15(1): 1–11.
40. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH, (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology 2(12): 732–734.
41. Sovacool BK, (2014) Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37: 249–264.
42. Steingraber S, (2014) Victory over fracking: Come celebrate on January 21. Available at: http://nyagainstfracking.org/victory-over-fracking-come-celebrate-on-january-7/
43. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P, (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Journal of Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.
44. Sykes K, Macnaghten P, (2013) Responsible innovation—Opening up dialogue and debate. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M, (eds) Response Innovation Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 85–108.
45. Taebi B, Correljé A, Cuppen E, Dignum M, Pesch U, (2014) Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1): 118–124.
46. Twitter Inc. (2015) About: Twitter usage/company facts. Available at: https://about.twitter.com/company
47. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012) Gas fracking: Can we safely squeeze the rocks? UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), November. Available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-GEAS_NOV_2012.pdf
48. Vis F, (2013) Twitter as a reporting tool for breaking news. Digital Journalism 1(1): 27–47.
49. Wasserman S, Faust K, (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50. White C, (2012) The context of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: Is Louisiana unique? Unpublished MS, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
51. Yardi S, boyd D, (2010) Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5): 316–327.
52. Zappavigna M, (2012) Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London; New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.