Word choice matters: Comment on Stoutenborough et al. 2016, ‘Is “fracking” a new dirty word?’

Evensen, Darrick T.N. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8892-0052 2016. Word choice matters: Comment on Stoutenborough et al. 2016, ‘Is “fracking” a new dirty word?’. Energy Research and Social Science 20 , pp. 8-9. 10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.012

Preview

PDF - Accepted Post-Print Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (100kB) | Preview

Abstract

Stoutenborough et al. (2016) recently published an article in Energy Research and Social Science with data to show that use of the term ‘fracking’ versus ‘hydraulic fracturing’ matters little with regards to the level of concern elicited by this form of energy development. The authors conclude that word choice (or ‘framing’) of this form of unconventional fossil fuel development is ‘much ado about nothing’ and that ‘survey research into fracking need not overly worry about the choice of [word] strategy’ (p. 56). These inferences are problematic. First, despite the authors’ repeated claims that prior research has not explored differences in public attitudes on this issue when ‘fracking’ versus other language is used, prior research has examined this topic – via a very similar methodological approach – and generated opposite findings. One difference is that Stoutenborough et al. used ‘hydraulic fracturing’ as the alternative term, whereas the previous, similar study used ‘shale gas development’. I discuss why the different comparisons likely yielded divergent results. I further argue that the authors’ conclusions are unjustified and ill-advised based on the data from the two surveys in concert. Word choice does matter when discussing this issue; the word ‘fracking’ should be avoided.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Psychology
Subjects:	G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > G Geography (General) H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Hydraulic fracturing; Shale gas; Framing; Bias
Publisher:	Elsevier
ISSN:	2214-6296
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	20 December 2016
Date of Acceptance:	15 June 2016
Last Modified:	06 Nov 2023 20:42
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/95578

Citation Data

Cited 16 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item