Public hearings enable agencies to inform impact analyses of proposed projects. Yet, how participants present evidence during hearings is underexplored. Our study builds knowledge through an argumentative analysis of a hearing about fracking in New York. Results show that participants used three mechanisms – boundary work, practical reasoning, and professional reasoning – to contest the environmental agency’s evidentiary and normative claims and propose alternatives. These mechanisms suggest that politicization of hearings occurs when testifiers make visible and problematize an agency’s limiting assumptions on administrative decisions. Further, achieving accountability through hearings requires effort articulating that a matter deserves heightened scrutiny.
AdamsD. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 29–42.
2.
AdgateJ. L.GoldsteinB. D.McKenzieL. M. (2014). Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15), 8307–8320.
3.
AlmerH. L.KoontzT. M. (2004). Public hearings for EIAs in post-communist Bulgaria: Do they work?Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(5), 473–493.
4.
BakerW. H.AddamsH. L.DavisB. (2005). Critical factors for enhancing municipal public hearings. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 490–499.
5.
BarryA. (2012). Political situations: Knowledge controversies in transnational governance. Critical Policy Studies, 6(3), 324–336.
6.
BeckS. J.GronewoldK. L.WesternK. J. (2012). Intergroup argumentation in city government decision making: The Wal-Mart dilemma. Small Group Research, 43(5), 587–612.
7.
BerryJ. M. (1981). Beyond citizen participation: Effective advocacy before administrative agencies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 463–477.
8.
BovensM. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.
9.
BukalovaD.MalandE. (2023). Mind the gap: Strategies from California on navigating access to public hearings. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 435–441.
10.
ButtnyR. (2019). Accounting for ‘how we know’ about the safety/risks with hydrofracking: An intergovernmental hearing on the revised Environmental Impact Statement on whether to permit hydrofracking in New York state. Journal of Risk Research, 22(3), 334–345.
11.
ChailleuxS. (2020). Strategic ignorance and politics of time: how expert knowledge framed shale gas policies. Critical Policy Studies, 14(2), 174–192.
12.
CheckowayB. (1981). The politics of public hearings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 566–582.
13.
ChessC.PurcellK. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16), 2685–2692.
14.
ChoiY.FoxA. M.DodgeJ. (2022). What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: The case of single-payer healthcare in New York State. Policy Sciences, 55(4), 631–660.
15.
ColeR. L.CaputoD. A. (1984). The public hearing as an effective citizen participation mechanism: A case study of the general revenue sharing program. American Political Science Review, 78(2), 404–416.
16.
CouchS. R.Kroll-SmithS. (1997). Environmental movements and expert knowledge: Evidence for a new populism. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 34, 185–210.
17.
DodgeJ. (2009). Environmental justice and deliberative democracy: How social change organizations respond to power in the deliberative system. Policy and Society, 28(3), 225–239.
18.
DodgeJ.LeeJ. (2017). Framing dynamics and political gridlock: The curious case of hydraulic fracturing in New York. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(1), 14–34.
19.
EatonE.KinchyA. (2016). Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania). Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 22–30.
20.
EbdonC. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 273–294.
21.
EdenS. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 183–204.
22.
EpsteinD.FarinaC.HeidtJ. (2014). The value of words: Narrative as evidence in policy making. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 10(2), 243–258.
23.
FischerF. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In FischerF.MillerG. J.SidneyM. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (Vol. 125, pp. 223–236). Routledge.
24.
FischerF. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford.
25.
FredericksonH. G. (1980). New public administration. University Alabama Press.
26.
GoldenM. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270.
27.
GormleyW. T.Jr. (1986). The representation revolution: Reforming state regulation through public representation. Administration & Society, 18(2), 179–196.
28.
GrundyJ.SmithM. (2007). Activist knowledges in queer politics. Economy and Society, 36(2), 294–317.
29.
GundryK. G.HeberleinT. A. (1984). Do public meetings represent the public?Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(2), 175–182.
30.
GustonD. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
31.
HajerM. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press.
32.
HandleyD. M.Howell-MoroneyM. (2010). Ordering stakeholder relationships and citizen participation: Evidence from the community development block grant program. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 601–609.
33.
JewellC.BeroL. (2007). Public participation and claimsmaking: Evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California's ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 625–650.
34.
LandoT. (2003). The public hearing process: A tool for citizen participation, or a path toward citizen alienation?National Civic Review, 92(1), 73–82.
35.
LennonM. (2014). Presentation and persuasion: The meaning of evidence in Irish green infrastructure policy. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 167–186.
36.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
37.
MaxwellJ. A. (Ed.). (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage publications.
38.
McComasK. A. (2001a). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11(1), 36–55.
39.
McComasK. A. (2001b). Public meetings about local waste management problems: Comparing participants to nonparticipants. Environmental Management, 27(1), 135–147.
40.
MesquitaT. S.AzevedoR. R. D. (2022). Synchronous accountability forums: The internal dynamics of budget public hearings. Revista de Administracao Publica, 56(6), 799–822.
41.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
42.
MoynihanD. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, DC. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164–188.
43.
NeshkovaM. I.GuoH. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 267–288.
44.
OsbornS. G.VengoshA.WarnerN. R.JacksonR. B. (2011). Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8172–8176.
45.
ParsonsW. (2002). From muddling through to muddling up-evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British Government. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 43–60.
PearceW. (2014). Scientific data and its limits: rethinking the use of evidence in local climate change policy. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 10(2), 187–203.
48.
PellizzoniL. (2011). The politics of facts: local environmental conflicts and expertise. Environmental Politics, 20(6), 765–785.
49.
QuickK. S.FeldmanM. S. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 673–695.
50.
RadaelliC. M. (1999). The public policy of the European Union: Whither politics of expertise?Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), 757–774.
51.
ReinM.SchönD. (1996a). Reframing policy discourse. In FischerF.ForesterJ. (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). Duke University Press.
52.
ReinM.SchönD. (1996b). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9, 85–104.
53.
RosenbaumW. A. (1978). Public involvement as reform and ritual: The development of federal participation programs. Citizen participation in America, 1978, 81–96.
54.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
55.
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403.
56.
SchramS. F.SossJ. (2001). Success stories: Welfare reform, policy discourse, and the politics of research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 577(1), 49–65.
57.
SiegelD. I.AzzolinaN. A.SmithB. J.PerryA. E.BothunR. L. (2015). Methane concentrations in water wells unrelated to proximity to existing oil and gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(7), 4106–4112.
58.
SinghS.KumarY. (2022). Civil society-mediated governance: Making social security programs work through public hearings in India. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(2), e2477.
59.
Smith OchoaC. (2020). Trivializing inequality by narrating facts: A discourse analysis of contending storylines in Germany. Critical Policy Studies, 14(3), 319–338.
60.
StakeR. E. (1998). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 88–109). Sage.
61.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Sage.
62.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
63.
StenmarkD. (2001). The relationship between information and knowledge. Proceedings of IRIS, 24(2001), 11–14.
64.
StoneB. (2015). Accountability and the design of an anticorruption agency in a parliamentary democracy. Policy Studies, 36(2), 157–175.
65.
TCCOG. (2011). Draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement and draft regulations for high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Tompkins County Council of Governments.
66.
TopalC. (2009). The construction of general public interest: Risk, legitimacy, and power in a public hearing. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 277–300.
67.
TopalC.GephartR. P. (2025). A relational construction of organizational risk: Normalizing versus problematizing through risk work on concerns versus measures. Journal of Management Inquiry, 34(1), 78–102.
68.
van EetenM. J. G. (1999). ‘Dialogues of the deaf’ on science in policy controversies. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 185–192.
69.
Van HulstM.VisserE. L. (2025). Abductive analysis in qualitative public administration research. Public Administration Review, 85, 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13856
70.
WhatmoreS. J. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587–598.
71.
YackeeS. W. (2006). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: The influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 103–124.
72.
YanowD. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), 9–25.
73.
YanowD. (2014). Thinking interpretively. In YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (Eds.), Interpretation and methods: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (2nd ed., pp. 5–26). M.E. Sharpe.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
