Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
3 - Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Frames identify what is at stake in a problem or situation, indicating to what broader category it belongs, and thereby pointing out which facts are relevant. The chapter explains how framing is involved in misunderstanding or disagreement in environmental controversies. It provides conceptual handles to recognise frames in the language of environmental science or policy, by identifying what is included and excluded, by identifying metaphors or comparisons, or by articulating storylines. Frames can also become institutionalised, embedded in organisational practices, regulations, or even material devices. This makes them harder to identify. As frames clash or run into trouble, they get modified, which provides opportunities for social learning about fundamental assumptions or understandings of an issue. By making frames explicit, they become available for more open reflection, which may in some cases lead to reframing: new interpretations that can help deadlocked debates or question problematic assumptions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 36 - 57Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Drenthen, M. (2017). Environmental Hermeneutics and the Meaning of Nature. In Thompson, A. and Gardiner, S. M., eds., Environmental Hermeneutics and the Meaning of Nature (pp. 162–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., and Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halffman, W., and Hoppe, R. (2005). Science/Policy Boundaries: A Changing Division of Labour in Dutch Expert Policy Advice. In Maasen, S. and Weingart, P., eds., Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-making (pp. 135–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Halffman, W., and Ragas, A. M. (2016). Achter de Horizon: Omgaan met onzekerheid bij nieuwe risico’s. www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2017/08/23/beleidsperspectieven-voor-omgaan-met-onzekerheden-bij-nieuwe-risico-sGoogle Scholar
Halffman, W., and Ragas, A. M. (2018, forthcoming). Beyond the Horizon: Uncertainty in Environmental Policy for New Risks.Google Scholar
Hisschemöller, M., and Hoppe, R. (1995–1996). Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 8(4), 40–60.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. A. (2010). The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering, and Participation. Portland: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Jardine, N., Secord, J. A., and Spary, E. C., eds. (1996). Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kreuter, M. W., Rosa, C. D., Howze, E. H., and Baldwin, G. T. (2004). Understanding Wicked Problems: A Key to Advancing Environmental Health Promotion. Health Education & Behavior, 31(4), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieshout, M. van, Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., and Termeer, C. (2011). Do Scale Frames Matter? Scale Frame Mismatches in the Decision Making Process of a ‘Mega Farm’ in a Small Dutch Village. Ecology and Society, 16(1), art. 38. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art38/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metze, T. (2014). Fracking the Debate: Frame Shifts and Boundary Work in Dutch Decision Making on Shale Gas. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–18. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2014.941462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijnappel, M. (2016). Lost in Technification: Uncovering the Latent Clash of Societal Values in Dutch Public Policy Discourse of Animal-testing Alternatives. PhD thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Rico, A., Van den Brink, P. J., Leitner, P., Graf, W., and Focks, A. (2016). Relative Influence of Chemical and Non-chemical Stressors on Invertebrate Communities: A Case Study in the Danube River. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 1370–1382. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.087Google Scholar
Scholten, P. (2008). Constructing Immigrant Policies. Research-policy Relations and Immigrant Integration in the Netherlands, 1970–2004. PhD thesis. Enschede: Twente University.Google Scholar
Schön, D., and Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractible Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (1991). Power, Technologies and the Phonomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions. In Law, J., ed., A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (pp. 26–56). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (1997). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, L. N. H., Leuven, R. S. E. W., and Zwart, H. A. E. (2016). Metaphors in Invasion Biology: Implications for Risk Assessment and Management of Non-Native Species. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 19(3), 273–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2016.1226234Google Scholar
Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar