Contesting hydrofracking during an inter-governmental hearing: Accounting by reworking or challenging the question

Abstract

An inter-governmental hearing on hydrofracking for natural gas is examined. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently released an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and takes questions from the New York State Assembly. Assembly members pose concerns with the EIS. The DEC’s responses at times appear to not address the question, but rather to challenge or rework the question in a way that can be answered from the DEC perspective. Assembly members assess seeming evasive answers in critical ways. This interactional pattern is examined from a discursive analysis perspective as problem–accounts–assessments sequences. Especially notable are the discursive practices of reported speech and metadiscourse in these accounting sequences. The conflicting assessments are not based on ‘the facts’, but on which facts are relevant. The DEC can be heard as advocating for their draft of the EIS despite the concerns raised by the Assembly. At certain junctures, Assembly members accuse the DEC of being biased or evasive, which does not make for the trust needed to reach consensus. At stake in this hearing is the construction of environmental or public health risk and whether or not to permit hydrofracking.

Keywords

Accounts assessment environmental controversy environmental impact statement hydrofracking inter-governmental hearing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boholm

(2008) The public meeting as a theatre of dissent: Risk and hazard in land use and environmental planning. Journal of Risk Research 11: 119–140.

Boholm

(2009) Speaking of risk: Matters of context. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 3: 335–354.

Bora

Hausendorf

(2006) Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and Public Policy 33: 478–488.

Boynton

(1991) When senators and publics meet at the Environmental Protection Subcommittee. Discourse & Society 2: 131–155.

Buttny

(1993) Social Accountability in Communication. London: SAGE.

Buttny

(2010) Citizen participation, metadiscourse and accountability: A public hearing on a zoning change for Wal-Mart. Journal of Communication 60: 636–659.

Clayman

(1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In: Drew

Heritage

(eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–198.

Clayman

(2001) Answers and evasions. Language in Society 30: 403–442.

Diez

Stern

(eds) (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

10.

Douglas

(1992) Risk and Blame. New York: Routledge.

11.

Duggan-Hass

Ross

Allom

(2013) The Science Beneath the Surface: A Very Short Guide of the Marcellus Shale. Ithaca, NY: Paleontological Research Institution.

12.

Fisher

(2000) Citizens, Experts, and The Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

13.

Fox

(2010) Gasland: A film by Josh Fox. Available at: http://one.gaslandthemovie.com/home

14.

Goffman

(1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

15.

Guignard

(2013) A certain uncertainty: Drilling into the rhetoric of Marcellus Shale natural gas development. In: Goggin

(ed.) Environmental Rhetoric and Ecologies of Place. New York: Routledge, pp. 15–27.

16.

Harris

(1991) Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In: Scanell

(ed.) Broadcast Talk. London: SAGE, pp. 76–99.

17.

Hilgartner

(2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18.

Hutchby

(1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Jefferson

(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner

(ed) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–23.

20.

Llewllyn

(2005) Audience participation in political discourse: A study of public hearings. Sociology 39: 697–716.

21.

McGraw

(2011) The end of country :Dispatches from the frack zone. New York: Random House.

22.

McKibben

(2012) Why not frack? New York Review of Books, 8 March. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/why-not-frack/

23.

Mazur

(2014) How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012? Public Understanding of Science 23: 1–16.

24.

Palmlund

(2009) Risk and social dramaturgy. In: Heath

O’Hair

(eds) Handbook of risk and crisis communication New York: Routledge, pp. 192-204.

25.

Perry

(2013) Using ethnography to monitor the community health implications of onshore unconventional oil and gas developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale. New Solutions 23: 33–53.

26.

Pidgeon

Simmons

Henwood

(2006) Risk, environment, and technology. In: Taylor-Gooby

Zinn

(eds) Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–116.

27.

Revkin

(2014) With unresolved health risks and few signs of an economic boon, Cuomo to ban gas fracking. The New York Times, 17 December. Available at: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/with-unresolved-health-risks-and-few-signs-of-an-economic-boon-cuomo-to-ban-gas-fracking/?module=BlogPost-Title&;version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=gas&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

28.

Sidnell

(2004) There’s risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry testimony. Discourse & Society 15: 745–766.

29.

Slovic

Finucane

Peters

. (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311–322.

30.

Stivers

Hayashi

(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–25.

31.

Tracy

Hughes

(2014) Democracy-appealing partisanship: A situated ideal of citizenship. Journal of Applied Communication Research 42: 307–324.

32.

Tracy

Robles

(2009) Questions, questioning, and institutional practices: An introduction. Discourse Studies 11: 131–152.

33.

Wilbur

(2012) Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

34.

Wilbur

(2013) Future of shale gas: Golden age or dark age of energy? Lecture at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.