LIST OF PANELS

While hydraulic fracking for shale gas caused an 'energy revolution' in the United States that moved to Europe and other place, “fracking” has also caused societal contestations. As more incidents of water contamination and earthquakes occur – and as academic research demonstrates negative environmental impacts – citizens, academics, governmental agencies, and environmental organizations engage in heated policy debates over the desirability of fracking, alternately framing it as an energy game changer, a highly risky technology, a geopolitical force, or a “bridge fuel. ”What is puzzling is that while these frames seem consistent across contexts, the response to fracking varies considerably. For example, many citizens in Poland welcome it, but France has banned it outright. When examining more closely how actors frame fracking in differing contexts, however, one quickly learns that meanings behind words like “energy independence” also vary: for example, it is associated with a post-colonial struggle in Poland but an anti-terrorist sentiment in the US. These meanings can have quite different influences on the way policy actors interpret and present scientific evidence and uncertainties, and make prescriptions for policy and governance. These characteristics suggest that fracking is not merely a technological problem to be resolved with more scientific analysis. Rather, it is an interpretive problem that requires understanding the meaning societal and governmental groups attribute to it, knowledge about it, and its impacts on the environment and energy supplies. This panel welcomes papers adopting an interpretive perspective to analyzing this controversy. Topics may include: boundary work, framing, discourse, the role of experts, and/or the role of scientific and other forms of knowledge.  By focusing on interpretation, we aim to surpass basic understandings of seemingly consistent debates across contexts to examine fundamental societal, scientific and political conflicts that enliven controversy in particular contexts. We especially welcome papers investigating cases from non-Western countries.

While hydraulic fracking for shale gas caused an 'energy revolution' in the United States that has come to Europe and other places in the world, “fracking” has also caused societal contestations. As more incidents of water contamination and earthquakes occur, and as academic research demonstrates negative environmental impacts, citizens, academics, governmental agencies, and environmental organizations have engaged in heated policy debates over the desirability of shale gas development, energy security issues, and whether shale gas has the potential to usher in a transition toward a carbon free society. Throughout the history of this controversy, citizens, civil society organizations, industry representatives, and public leaders have variously framed hydraulic fracturing as an energy game changer, a highly risky technology, a geopolitical force, and a “bridge fuel” among many others. What is puzzling in this case is that while these frames seem to be fairly consistent across contexts, the response to hydraulic fracturing has varied considerably. For example, many citizens in Poland welcome hydraulic fracturing, but France has banned it outright. When examining more closely how actors frame hydraulic fracturing in differing contexts, however, one quickly comes to understand that the meanings behind words like “energy independence” vary considerably across contexts. For instance, it is associated with a post-colonial struggle in Poland versus an anti-terrorist sentiment in the US. Furthermore, these meanings can have quite different influences on the way policy actors interpret and present scientific evidence and uncertainties, make prescriptions for policy and governance and generate other types of political effects. These characteristics suggest that hydraulic fracturing is not merely a technological problem that can be resolved with more scientific analysis, however important this might be. Rather, it is an interpretive problem that requires understanding the meaning – what Weber labeled verstehen – that different societal and governmental groups attribute to hydraulic fracturing, knowledge about it, its impacts on the environmental and energy supplies; and its governance. Therefore, this panel invites papers that adopt an interpretive perspective to analyzing this policy controversy. Topics may include, but are not limited to, a focus on boundary work, framing, discourse analysis, the role of experts in the fracking controversy, and/or the role of scientific and other forms of knowledge.  By focusing on meaning and interpretation, we aim to go beyond a basic understanding of the seemingly consistent debate across contexts found in the repeated use of frames to enable an examination of the fundamental societal, scientific and political conflicts that enliven and underlie the debates in particular contexts. We especially invite papers that investigate cases from non-Western countries. The scientific relevance of this panel is that it will not only deepen our understanding of the hydraulic fracturing controversy in and across contexts, but also generate new insights about contemporary policy controversies generally. Given that so many policy controversies involve fundamental struggles over meaning where actors cannot agree on basic problem definitions or solutions – such as climate change or inequality – we need to sharpen our models to account for these increasingly complex dynamics.