‘If they only knew what I know’: Attitude change from education about ‘fracking’

Evensen, Darrick

doi:10.1080/14660466.2017.1309884

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A logical conclusion from previous research on public perceptions of shale gas development, which suggests knowledge about impacts leads to support and opposition, is that sharing additional facts about impacts could help shift support and opposition more in line with "reality" (following the common language of information deficit approaches [Stedman et al 2016]). Nevertheless, consistent with other recent findings (Evensen 2017, Fernando and Cooley 2016b, Kroepsch 2016, Williams et al 2017, our research cautions that providing the public with additional information about impacts will do little to shape attitudes towards or beliefs about shale gas development. Rather, our findings further support the results and recommendations that emerged from the National Research Council (2014) workshops on shale gas development.…”

Section: Implications For Communicationsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The finding that beliefs about impacts of shale gas development potentially do not precede attitude formation implies that strategic communication about this issue will be more difficult than academics and the public have asserted (see, for example, UK Government claims on this front [Evensen 2017, Williams et al 2017). A logical conclusion from previous research on public perceptions of shale gas development, which suggests knowledge about impacts leads to support and opposition, is that sharing additional facts about impacts could help shift support and opposition more in line with "reality" (following the common language of information deficit approaches [Stedman et al 2016]).…”

Section: Implications For Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development

Evensen

Stedman

2017

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Previous work suggests attitudes toward 'fracking' are based on specific beliefs  Our research suggests attitudes may instead lead to beliefs about development  This finding challenges social-psychological assumptions about attitude objects  Communication on impacts of 'fracking' may do little to affect support/opposition  Policy should focus on issues beyond the immediate impacts of development 2 Abstract Do facts lead to positive/negative views about energy development or vice versa? The answer matters crucially for policy and communicationif perceptions of what is true (beliefs) precede feelings (attitudes), additional information could shape views on an energy technology; yet, if attitudes precede beliefs, the usefulness of communication, either for influencing beliefs or simply making the public more informed, is far less clear. A long history of social-psychological research asserts that individuals' beliefs predict their attitudes on environmental issues. Nevertheless, other theories intimate the reverseattitudes shape beliefs, specifically on newly emergent, controversial topics. We investigated whether attitudes (i.e., support and opposition) about the contentious issue of shale gas development stem from or lead to beliefs about development. We collected data from random-sample surveysof residents in the Marcellus Shale region and of a national US sample. Factor analyses and structural equation modelling lead us to question the dominant assumption that beliefs precede attitudesthe reverse, or a recursive relationship, appears more likely. Broad values and place attachment precede attitude formation more reliably than beliefs about impacts dosuggesting need for a larger focus in energy policy on core values and the ways in which development could foster or compromise these values.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Communicationsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Implications For Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development

Evensen

Stedman

2017

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Andersson-Hudson et al (2019) find that laypeople who are more knowledgeable about shale gas have more unified views. Indeed, all cross-public surveys studied here find that motivations determine public responses: associating fracking with earthquakes negatively correlates with support for the technology and relates to demographic variables, including political views and gender Howell, 2018;O'Hara et al, 2016;Evensen, 2017). These findings align with similar studies in Europe (Lis et al, 2015;Evensen, 2018), the US (Boudet et al, 2014;Graham et al, 2015), and Canada (Thomas et al, 2017b).…”

Section: Knowledge Language and Risks Of Induced Seismicitysupporting

confidence: 84%

Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a borehole stimulation technique used to enhance permeability in geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity. The potential to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and public concern, particularly in the UK where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations and triggered moratoria. Prior to 2018, there seemed to be a disconnect between the conclusions of expert groups about the risk of adverse impacts from hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity and the reported level of public concern about hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity. Furthermore, a range of terminology was used to describe the induced seismicity (including tremors, earthquakes, seismic events, and micro-earthquakes) which could indicate the level of perceived risk. Using the UK as a case study, we examine the conclusions of expert-led public-facing reports on the risk (likelihood and impact) of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing for shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explored views of the UK public on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Furthermore, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 asking the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK public in the period 2012–2016, i.e. “do you associate shale gas with earthquakes?”. We asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers, we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts was actually the result of different interpretations of the language used to describe seismicity. Responses are confounded by the ambiguity of the language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used in the survey responses to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the risk (magnitude, shaking, and potential for adverse impact) presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “bad language” around fracking has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity. We call for multi-method approaches to understand the perceived risks around geoenergy resources and suggest that developing and adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. Our findings are relevant to any applications that present – or are perceived to present – the risk of induced seismicity. More broadly, our work is relevant to any topics of public interest where language ambiguities muddle risk communication.

show abstract

“…Where testing of knowledge pre-and post-intervention was used, studies reported knowledge gain for students, but this tended not to relate to the environmental, social or health impacts of fracking. Evensen (2017) tested the link between knowledge and attitudes, finding over the course of a 13-week intensive course that a change in self-evaluated knowledge about fracking and its impacts was reported but with little change in students' attitudes.…”

Section: Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

The environment and politics in science education: the case of teaching fracking

Dunlop

Atkinson

Diepen

2021

Cult Stud of Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), like other complex social and environmental issues, is a controversy about science which raises educational questions about how best to prepare young people to understand, respond to and, where necessary, act (or not) in response. It raises political questions. We present a state-of-the-art review of research literature on fracking and education using systematic strategies, with a view to finding out how it is framed in educational situations and how politics enters the science classroom. This serves as an illustrative case of how contested scientific and technological interventions with implications for the environment and society are treated in school science. The review is supplemented by interviews with 10 teachers of science and engineering working in schools or colleges near sites of operational exploratory fracking. We find that the research literature on teaching hydraulic fracturing is sparse, with only 25 studies relating to teaching and learning about fracking. Few studies (n = 7) relate to high school education. Where it features in science education, fracking is used as a context for interdisciplinarity and critical thinking, and lends itself to approaches using discussion, dialogue and modelling. Outcomes from fracking education range include knowledge gains and critical thinking. Teachers interviewed tended not to see a place for fracking in the curriculum or in the classroom and were averse to including politics in upper high school science education. Our analysis suggests depoliticization through absence of this specific complex environmental issue from the public (education) sphere, reinforced by the desire for ‘balance’ in high school science education and instrumental approaches to science education which prioritize assessed learning outcomes. Dealing with complex social and environmental issues such as hydraulic fracturing in the years of compulsory science schooling is necessary because scientific knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to prepare young people for the critical scientific literacy required to meet sustainable development goals. There is a need to assess and respond to the educational needs of local communities affected by industrial interventions such as fracking. These findings are likely to be relatable to other issues where there are local and global consequences of action or inaction and where the environment and health are pitted against economic and energy demands.

show abstract

‘If they only knew what I know’: Attitude change from education about ‘fracking’

Cited by 8 publications

References 59 publications

Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development

Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development

Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

The environment and politics in science education: the case of teaching fracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About