Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracturing in Europe and the United States

Tamara Metze, Jennifer Dodge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a controversial issue in most countries. In these controversies discursive boundary work is a communicative strategy actors use to convince various audiences of their position. It involves the framing of facts in contrast to other kinds of arguments. In this article we develop the Dynamic Discourse Coalition (DDC) approach to study how discourse coalitions deploy boundary work to confirm, integrate, polarize or disintegrate their own and opposing discourse coalitions. The DDC approach enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics of controversies about hydraulic fracturing and similar contested technologies by illuminating the influence of communicative processes on policy formation. Based on an analysis of policy documents, academic reports, newspapers, interviews and websites we compare the dynamics of contesting discourse coalitions in The Netherlands and New York. This analysis explains why policy formed in different ways in the cases despite the apparent similarity of the discourse coalitions that emerged in the respective controversies.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)365-379
Number of pages15
JournalEnvironmental Communication
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2016

Fingerprint

Europe
policy
analysis
hydraulic fracturing
shale gas
document

Cite this

Metze, Tamara ; Dodge, Jennifer. / Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracturing in Europe and the United States. In: Environmental Communication. 2016 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 365-379.
@article{0ca3f492a8f64909947597bee4b60dae,
title = "Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracturing in Europe and the United States",
abstract = "Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a controversial issue in most countries. In these controversies discursive boundary work is a communicative strategy actors use to convince various audiences of their position. It involves the framing of facts in contrast to other kinds of arguments. In this article we develop the Dynamic Discourse Coalition (DDC) approach to study how discourse coalitions deploy boundary work to confirm, integrate, polarize or disintegrate their own and opposing discourse coalitions. The DDC approach enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics of controversies about hydraulic fracturing and similar contested technologies by illuminating the influence of communicative processes on policy formation. Based on an analysis of policy documents, academic reports, newspapers, interviews and websites we compare the dynamics of contesting discourse coalitions in The Netherlands and New York. This analysis explains why policy formed in different ways in the cases despite the apparent similarity of the discourse coalitions that emerged in the respective controversies.",
author = "Tamara Metze and Jennifer Dodge",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1080/17524032.2015.1133437",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "365--379",
journal = "Environmental Communication",
issn = "1752-4032",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracturing in Europe and the United States. / Metze, Tamara; Dodge, Jennifer.

In: Environmental Communication, Vol. 10, No. 3, 01.2016, p. 365-379.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracturing in Europe and the United States

AU - Metze, Tamara

AU - Dodge, Jennifer

PY - 2016/1

Y1 - 2016/1

N2 - Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a controversial issue in most countries. In these controversies discursive boundary work is a communicative strategy actors use to convince various audiences of their position. It involves the framing of facts in contrast to other kinds of arguments. In this article we develop the Dynamic Discourse Coalition (DDC) approach to study how discourse coalitions deploy boundary work to confirm, integrate, polarize or disintegrate their own and opposing discourse coalitions. The DDC approach enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics of controversies about hydraulic fracturing and similar contested technologies by illuminating the influence of communicative processes on policy formation. Based on an analysis of policy documents, academic reports, newspapers, interviews and websites we compare the dynamics of contesting discourse coalitions in The Netherlands and New York. This analysis explains why policy formed in different ways in the cases despite the apparent similarity of the discourse coalitions that emerged in the respective controversies.

AB - Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is a controversial issue in most countries. In these controversies discursive boundary work is a communicative strategy actors use to convince various audiences of their position. It involves the framing of facts in contrast to other kinds of arguments. In this article we develop the Dynamic Discourse Coalition (DDC) approach to study how discourse coalitions deploy boundary work to confirm, integrate, polarize or disintegrate their own and opposing discourse coalitions. The DDC approach enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics of controversies about hydraulic fracturing and similar contested technologies by illuminating the influence of communicative processes on policy formation. Based on an analysis of policy documents, academic reports, newspapers, interviews and websites we compare the dynamics of contesting discourse coalitions in The Netherlands and New York. This analysis explains why policy formed in different ways in the cases despite the apparent similarity of the discourse coalitions that emerged in the respective controversies.

U2 - 10.1080/17524032.2015.1133437

DO - 10.1080/17524032.2015.1133437

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 365

EP - 379

JO - Environmental Communication

JF - Environmental Communication

SN - 1752-4032

IS - 3

ER -