Putting the U in carbon capture and storage: rhetorical boundary negotiation within the CCS/CCUS scientific community

Endres, Danielle; Cozen, Brian; O'Byrne, Megan; Feldpausch-Parker, Andrea M.; Peterson, Tarla Rai

doi:10.1080/00909882.2016.1225160

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1979, Allen et al vs. the United States of America was filed by residents downwind from the Nevada Test Site, many of whom had developed cancers due to their proximity to the nuclear tests (National Atomic Testing Museum, 2021). 1979 was also the year that the Three Mile Island plant suffered a meltdown and channels for emergency communication failed, causing public trust in nuclear to be irreparably damaged (Farrell and Goodnight, 1981;Endres et al, 2016). One of the most famous nuclear meltdowns, the Chernobyl disaster, occurred in 1986 as a result of human error both in the operation and management of nuclear technology in the Soviet Union (Rich, 1986).…”

Section: Important Moments In Nuclear Energy's Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Technical rhetoric in the nuclear energy industry has been a marginal area of study in communication, with notable exceptions (e.g., Kinsella, 1996Kinsella, , 1999Endres et al, 2016;Summers et al, 2019). These studies have primarily been guided by ethnographic methods, making our methodology of interviews an opportunity to expand our understanding of how nuclear experts make sense of technical-public relationships and their careers in their own words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Topical Analysis of Nuclear Experts' Perceptions of Publics, Nuclear Energy, and Sustainable Futures

Patenaude

Bloomfield

2022

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear energy experts consider commercial power from fission to be a strong contender to help mitigate the increasing effects of climate change, in part due to its low-to-no carbon emissions. Nevertheless, nuclear energy's history, including meltdowns such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and dumping in sacred Indigenous land such as Yucca Mountain, raises important concerns in public deliberation over nuclear power. These communicative dynamics are crucial to study because they inform larger conversations in communication scholarship about the role of experts in scientific controversies and the complicated nature of public trust in and engagement with science. Thus, this study explores the perspectives of experts and how they make sense of their own communicative practices through a topical analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 nuclear scientists and engineers in the United States and Canada. Our analysis revealed four major topoi: (1) risk and safety, (2) government and policy, and (3) public education and engagement, and (4) cost, along which nuclear experts make sense of science-public boundaries and their role as scientists and scientist citizens. This paper extends our understanding and how scientists view themselves as communicative actors and the barriers and opportunities for how we can foster productive technical-public relationships around climate change solutions.

show abstract

Section: Important Moments In Nuclear Energy's Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topical Analysis of Nuclear Experts' Perceptions of Publics, Nuclear Energy, and Sustainable Futures

Patenaude

Bloomfield

2022

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…vii And in analogy with the experience with CCS, this may be enough for some time to sustain the regime, and may in fact even work best (for the regime) as long as the technology remains a 'promise', rather than a costly material investment [19]. There is alternatively scope for NETs to be more directly useful to the economic bloc underpinning neoliberalism, as the captured CO 2 could be used for enhanced extraction of oil and gas [57] or diverted from storage into carbon utilization, for example, in synthetic fuels [58]. In either case, on balance less carbon is permanently withdrawn from the atmosphere.…”

Section: The Cpe-md Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs)

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-technical summaryIn the face of limited carbon budgets, negative emissions technologies (NETs) offer hopes of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It is difficult to determine whether the prospect of NETs is significantly deterring or delaying timely action to cut emissions. This paper sets out a novel theoretical perspective to this challenge, enabling analysis that accounts for interactions between technologies, society and political and economic power. The paper argues that, seen in this light, the scope of NETs to substitute for mitigation may be easily exaggerated, and thus that the risk of harm from mitigation deterrence should be taken seriously.

show abstract

“…The problem as it is described is one of argument, not style. After Holmquest's rhetorical re-orienting of Gieryn's boundary work from style to argument, this concept is taken up by many communication scholars attempting to understand the rhetorical assignation of power among groups to claim epistemic authority and turf (Barley et al, 2012;Carlson, 2016;Derkatch, 2012;Endres et al, 2016;Friman, 2010;Holmquest, 1990;Kinsella, Kelly, & Autry, 2013;McGreavy, Hutchins, Smith et al, 2013;Scott, 2016). For example, TPC scholar Jennifer Scott (2016) argues that the vaccine versus antivaccine debate has morphed what counts as scientific evidence among scientists and antivaccine groups creating an unrealistic standard of science: absolute safety.…”

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundary Work and Boundary Objects: Synthesizing Two Concepts for Moments of Controversy

Houf

2020

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two boundary concepts utilized in technical and professional communication (TPC) scholarship: boundary work and, to a lesser degree, boundary objects. Boundary work functions to demarcate, incorporate, and expel particular ideas, groups, and practices from a field or profession. Boundary objects enhance the capacity of ideas, practices, and theories to translate across different groups. Together, these concepts are useful to TPC scholars interested in moments of controversy. In this essay, I explore the dialectical relationship between these two concepts and apply the resulting synthesis to a contemporary case study, the use of fecal microbiota transplants. I argue that the human microbiome functions as a boundary object and opens space within medicine’s own boundary work for the inclusion of fecal microbiota transplants. Together, the dialectical concepts of boundary work and boundary object create a new kind of analytic that allows TPC scholars to map boundary transformations, recognize moments for intervention, and create strategies for collaboration.

show abstract

Putting the U in carbon capture and storage: rhetorical boundary negotiation within the CCS/CCUS scientific community

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

Topical Analysis of Nuclear Experts' Perceptions of Publics, Nuclear Energy, and Sustainable Futures

Topical Analysis of Nuclear Experts' Perceptions of Publics, Nuclear Energy, and Sustainable Futures

Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs)

Boundary Work and Boundary Objects: Synthesizing Two Concepts for Moments of Controversy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About