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

Laurence Williams, Philip Macnaghten, Richard Davies, Sarah Curtis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The prospect of fracking in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by significant public unease. We outline how the policy debate is being framed by UK institutional actors, finding evidence of a dominant discourse in which the policy approach is defined through a deficit model of public understanding of science and in which a technical approach to feasibility and safety is deemed as sufficient grounds for good policymaking. Deploying a deliberative focus group methodology with lay publics across different sites in the north of England, we find that these institutional framings are poorly aligned with participants’ responses. We find that unease regularly overflows the focus on safety and feasibility and cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants. We find that scholarship from science and technology studies productively elucidates our participants’ largely sceptical positions, and orientates strategies for responding to them more effectively.
LanguageEnglish
Pages89-104
JournalPublic Understanding of Science
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Hydraulic fracturing
Safety
Focus Groups
England
technology studies
policy approach
science studies
Technology
deficit
discourse
lack
methodology
evidence
United Kingdom
Hydraulic Fracking
Hydraulics
Public Perception
Group
Public Understanding of Science
Discourse

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{969319412f11459b9a8d84e677f01d4a,
title = "Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom",
abstract = "The prospect of fracking in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by significant public unease. We outline how the policy debate is being framed by UK institutional actors, finding evidence of a dominant discourse in which the policy approach is defined through a deficit model of public understanding of science and in which a technical approach to feasibility and safety is deemed as sufficient grounds for good policymaking. Deploying a deliberative focus group methodology with lay publics across different sites in the north of England, we find that these institutional framings are poorly aligned with participants’ responses. We find that unease regularly overflows the focus on safety and feasibility and cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants. We find that scholarship from science and technology studies productively elucidates our participants’ largely sceptical positions, and orientates strategies for responding to them more effectively.",
keywords = "fracking, framing risk, lay expertise, participation in science policy, public engagement, risk perception, shale gas",
author = "Laurence Williams and Philip Macnaghten and Richard Davies and Sarah Curtis",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1177/0963662515595159",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "89--104",
journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
issn = "0963-6625",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "1",

}

Framing ‘fracking’ : Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. / Williams, Laurence; Macnaghten, Philip; Davies, Richard; Curtis, Sarah.

In: Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2017, p. 89-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Framing ‘fracking’

T2 - Public Understanding of Science

AU - Williams, Laurence

AU - Macnaghten, Philip

AU - Davies, Richard

AU - Curtis, Sarah

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The prospect of fracking in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by significant public unease. We outline how the policy debate is being framed by UK institutional actors, finding evidence of a dominant discourse in which the policy approach is defined through a deficit model of public understanding of science and in which a technical approach to feasibility and safety is deemed as sufficient grounds for good policymaking. Deploying a deliberative focus group methodology with lay publics across different sites in the north of England, we find that these institutional framings are poorly aligned with participants’ responses. We find that unease regularly overflows the focus on safety and feasibility and cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants. We find that scholarship from science and technology studies productively elucidates our participants’ largely sceptical positions, and orientates strategies for responding to them more effectively.

AB - The prospect of fracking in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by significant public unease. We outline how the policy debate is being framed by UK institutional actors, finding evidence of a dominant discourse in which the policy approach is defined through a deficit model of public understanding of science and in which a technical approach to feasibility and safety is deemed as sufficient grounds for good policymaking. Deploying a deliberative focus group methodology with lay publics across different sites in the north of England, we find that these institutional framings are poorly aligned with participants’ responses. We find that unease regularly overflows the focus on safety and feasibility and cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants. We find that scholarship from science and technology studies productively elucidates our participants’ largely sceptical positions, and orientates strategies for responding to them more effectively.

KW - fracking

KW - framing risk

KW - lay expertise

KW - participation in science policy

KW - public engagement

KW - risk perception

KW - shale gas

U2 - 10.1177/0963662515595159

DO - 10.1177/0963662515595159

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 89

EP - 104

JO - Public Understanding of Science

JF - Public Understanding of Science

SN - 0963-6625

IS - 1

ER -