Commentary: STS of the Underground

Birkenholtz, Trevor

doi:10.17351/ests2018.240

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analytical interest in the ethical and socio-technical dimensions of different forms of underground development contributes to a growing field of social science research and work in science, technology and society (STS) which addresses how the underground is studied, engaged with, known, and evaluated (Birkenholtz, 2018;Kinchy et al, 2018). This work draws on Williams (2008) to reconsider the physical world encountered below the Earth's surface, studying for example how 'the underground' becomes a metaphor for highly technological environments (Kinchy et al, 2018) or operates as a site where human activities typify projects of modernity (Disco, 2010).…”

Section: Resource Frontiers and The Undergroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbed Earth: Conceptions of the Deep Underground in Shale Extraction Deliberations in the US and UK

Partridge¹,

Thomas²,

Pidgeon³

et al. 2019

Environmental Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') has enabled the recovery of previously inaccessible resources and rendered new areas of the underground 'productive'. While a number of studies in the US and UK have examined public attitudes toward fracking and its various impacts, how people conceptualise the deep underground itself has received less attention. We argue that views on resources, risk and the deep underground raise important questions about how people perceive the desirability and viability of subterranean interventions. We conducted day-long deliberation workshops (two in each country), facilitating discussions among diverse groups of people on prospective shale extraction in the US and UK. Themes that emerged in these conversations include seeing the Earth as a foundation; natural limits (a greater burden than the subsurface can withstand versus simply overuse of natural resources); and ideas about the fragility, instability and opacity of the deep underground. We find that concerns in both countries were not limited to specific, localised impacts but also addressed ecosystem links between surface and subsurface environments and broader questions about the use, identification and value of natural resources.

show abstract

Section: Resource Frontiers and The Undergroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbed Earth: Conceptions of the Deep Underground in Shale Extraction Deliberations in the US and UK

Partridge¹,

Thomas²,

Pidgeon³

et al. 2019

Environmental Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What things are is not predetermined and accessible but tied to knowledge practices and measurements. Different understandings of these materials, their characteristics and functionalities, can become key in political controversies (Ballestero, 2019b;Birkenholtz, 2018;. This means that materiality itself is performed through historical formations in combination with understandings and ideologies of the material (Ballestero, 2019b;Richardson & Weszkalnys, 2014).…”

Section: Materialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such political realities are both discursive and material, as reality is performed rather than observed (Birkenholtz, 2018;Mol, 1999Mol, , 2014. In this conception, material participation is the process of shaping what matter comes becomes relevant and how (Barry, 2012;Chilvers & Kearnes, 2016;Chilvers & Longhurst, 2016;Grove & Pugh, 2015).…”

Section: Materials Participation and Causationmentioning

confidence: 99%