Communication Science for Science Communication: Water Management for Oil and Natural Gas Extraction
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 143, Issue 11
Abstract
Water management for oil and natural gas extraction in the United States has become a topic of public interest and concern. This societal relevance simultaneously heightens the need for rigorous performance and dissemination of scientific work and invites caution from experts who are communicating within what is likely a politicized public conversation. This paper uses interviews to investigate experts’ current practices and comfort with communicating about water use for oil and natural gas. Participants cite face-to-face interactions and trust-based relationships as important in their interactions, which is consistent with research about effective communication. However, few participants highlight techniques specific to communicating about water as it relates to oil and gas or about controversial issues generally. Participants also rarely use communication science related to objective setting, framing, and measuring success for improvement, likely in part because of a lack of evidence-based training. In many cases, interviewees expressed attitudes consistent with the deficit model of scientific communication, which holds that presentation of scientific facts will change public opinion. This model has been shown to be relatively ineffective. This paper highlights the need for careful communication and evidence-based opportunities for improvement, including a suggestion that professional societies host communication training and coaching sessions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Russell Phillips and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. The authors thank the generous individuals who participated in this research for their time and insights. The authors also thank Jade Suganuma for her work as an undergraduate research assistant on transcribing and coding interviews for this project. Emily Grubert is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-114747, and Margaret Cook is supported by the National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or participants in the research. This research was performed under Stanford University Institutional Review Board Protocol IRB-33232. Stanford’s IRB can be reached at humansubjects.stanford.edu.
References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2016). “AAAS mass media science and engineering fellows program.” ⟨https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1⟩ (Dec. 18, 2016).
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., Pires, J. C., and Hoekstra, T. W. (2001). “Dragnet ecology—‘Just the facts, Ma’am’: The privilege of science in a postmodern world: Science of intrinsic quality needs narratives with explicit values—not just facts—particularly as it faces multiple-level complexity in advising on environmental policy, such as planning for energy futures.” BioScience, 51(6), 475–485.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., and Storksdieck, M. (2015). “Scientists’ views about communication training.” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(2), 199–220.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. D., Yuan, S., and Ghannam, N. A. (2016). “Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals.” Sci. Commun., 38(3), 356–381.
Blockstein, D. E. (2002). “How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility.” BioScience, 52(1), 91–96.
Bombaci, S. P., et al. (2016). “Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference.” Conserv. Biol., 30(1), 216–225.
Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and Leiserowitz, A. (2014). “‘Fracking’ controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing.” Energy Policy, 65(Feb), 57–67.
Bray, B., France, B., and Gilbert, J. K. (2012). “Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say?” Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B, 2(1), 23–41.
Bucchi, M. (2016). “Editorial.” Publ. Understanding Sci., 25(3), 264–268.
Clarke, H., Eisner, L., Styles, P., and Turner, P. (2014). “Felt seismicity associated with shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The first documented example in Europe.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 41(23), 8308–8314.
Cook, M., and Grubert, E. (2017). “Water use in the oil and gas industries: An evaluation of best practices for communicating with scientists, policymakers, and the public.” Proc., Society of Petroleum Engineers Health, Safety, Security, Environment, & Social Responsibility Conf.-North America, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX.
Cormick, C., Nielssen, O., Ashworth, P., Salle, J. L., and Saab, C. (2014). “What do science communicators talk about when they talk about science communications? Engaging with the engagers.” Sci. Commun., 37(2), 274–282.
Cortassa, C. (2016). “In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit.” Publ. Understanding Sci., 25(4), 447–459.
Davies, P. J., Gore, D. B., and Khan, S. J. (2015). “Managing produced water from coal seam gas projects: Implications for an emerging industry in Australia.” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 22(14), 10981–11000.
de Bruin, W. B., and Bostrom, A. (2013). “Assessing what to address in science communication.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14062–14068.
Dietz, T. (2013). “Bringing values and deliberation to science communication.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14081–14087.
Dudo, A., and Besley, J. C. (2016). “Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement.” PLoS One, 11(2), e0148867.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2017). “Where our natural gas comes from.” ⟨https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_where⟩ (Jan. 10, 2017).
Espig, M., and de Rijke, K. (2016). “Unconventional gas developments and the politics of risk and knowledge in Australia.” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 20(Oct), 82–90.
Feinstein, A. R. (1985). “Clinical epidemiology: The architecture of clinical research.” ⟨https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/806669⟩ (Dec. 18, 2016).
Fischhoff, B. (2013). “The sciences of science communication.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14033–14039.
Fischhoff, B., and Scheufele, D. A. (2013). “The science of science communication.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14031–14032.
Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., and Haslam, S. A. (2015). “Shared identity is key to effective communication.” Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull., 41(2), 171–182.
Greer, A. L. (1988). “The state of the art versus the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice.” Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care, 4(1), 5–26.
Gregory, K. B., Vidic, R. D., and Dzombak, D. A. (2011). “Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing.” Elements, 7(3), 181–186.
Haya, B., Strong, A., Grubert, E., and Cullenward, D. (2016). “Carbon offsets in California: Science in the policy development process.” Communicating climate-change and natural hazard risk and cultivating resilience, J. L. Drake, Y. Y. Kontar, J. C. Eichelberger, T. S. Rupp, and K. M. Taylor, eds., Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 241–254.
Holland, E. M., Pleasant, A., Quatrano, S., Gerst, R., Nisbet, M. C., and Mooney, C. (2007). “The risks and advantages of framing science.” Science, 317(5842), 1168b–1170b.
Hopkins, A. (2009). “Thinking about process safety indicators.” Saf. Sci., 47(4), 460–465.
Hu, D., and Xu, S. (2013). “Opportunity, challenges and policy choices for China on the development of shale gas.” Energy Policy, 60(Sep), 21–26.
Huttunen, S., and Hildén, M. (2013). “Framing the controversial geoengineering in academic literature.” Sci. Commun., 36(1), 3–29.
Iber, P. (2016). “A defense of academic Twitter.” ⟨https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/10/19/how-academics-can-use-twitter-most-effectively-essay⟩ (Dec. 18, 2016).
Jackson, R. B., et al. (2014). “The environmental costs and benefits of fracking.” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour., 39(1), 327–362.
Jacquet, J. B. (2014). “Review of risks to communities from shale energy development.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 48(15), 8321–8333.
Keranen, K. M., Weingarten, M., Abers, G. A., Bekins, B. A., and Ge, S. (2014). “Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection.” Science, 345(6195), 448–451.
Kuehne, L. M., et al. (2014). “Practical science communication strategies for graduate students.” Conserv. Biol., 28(5), 1225–1235.
Kunda, Z. (1990). “The case for motivated reasoning.” Psychol. Bull., 108(3), 480–498.
Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., and Shindler, B. (2003). “Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study.” BioScience, 53(2), 170–178.
Lackey, R. T. (2007). “Science, scientists, and policy advocacy.” Conserv. Biol., 21(1), 12–17.
Lubchenco, J. (1998). “Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science.” Science, 279(5350), 491–497.
Lupia, A. (2013). “Communicating science in politicized environments.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14048–14054.
Mazur, A. (2016). “How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012?” Publ. Understanding Sci., 25(2), 207–222.
McGranahan, C. (2013). “The academic benefits of Twitter.” ⟨http://savageminds.org/2013/05/08/the-academic-benefits-of-twitter/⟩ (Dec. 18, 2016).
Meyer, J. L., Frumhoff, P. C., Hamburg, S. P., and de la Rosa, C. (2010). “Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates.” Front. Ecol. Environ., 8(6), 299–305.
Mills, T. J., and Clark, R. N. (2001). “Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making.” For. Ecol. Manage., 153(1–3), 189–198.
Molinatti, G., and Simonneau, L. (2015). “A socioenvironmental shale gas controversy: Scientists’ public communications, social responsibility and collective versus individual positions.” Sci. Commun., 37(2), 190–216.
Mooney, H., and Ehrlich, P. (1999). “Ecologists, advocacy and public policy.” ⟨https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/files/projects/resources/ecoessay/wagner/rev1.html⟩ (Dec. 18, 2016).
Nelson, M. P., and Vucetich, J. A. (2009). “On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how.” Conserv. Biol., 23(5), 1090–1101.
Nisbet, M. C., and Mooney, C. (2007). “Framing science.” Science, 316(5821), 56.
Nisbet, M. C., and Scheufele, D. A. (2009). “What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.” Am. J. Bot., 96(10), 1767–1778.
NVivo version 10 [Computer software]. QSR International Pty Ltd., Doncaster, VIC, Australia.
Pace, M. L., et al. (2010). “Communicating with the public: Opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists.” Front. Ecol. Environ., 8(6), 292–298.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., and Taillieu, T. (2007). “Social learning and water resources management.” Ecol. Soc., 12(2), 5.
Priem, J., and Costello, K. L. (2010). “How and why scholars cite on Twitter.” Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 47(1), 1–4.
Priscoli, J. B. (1989). “Public involvement, conflict management: Means to Eq and social objectives.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 31–42.
Rasch, E. D., and Köhne, M. (2016). “Hydraulic fracturing, energy transition and political engagement in the Netherlands: The energetics of citizenship.” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 13(Mar), 106–115.
Roberts, M. R. (2009). “Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the national science foundation’s broader impacts criterion.” Soc. Epistemol., 23(3–4), 199–219.
Rost, K., Kashner, T. M., and Smith, G. R., Jr. (1994). “Effectiveness of psychiatric intervention with somatization disorder patients: Improved outcomes at reduced costs.” Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry, 16(6), 381–387.
Rykiel, E. J. (2001). “Scientific objectivity, value systems, and policymaking.” BioScience, 51(6), 433–436.
Scanlon, B. R., Reedy, R. C., and Nicot, J. P. (2014). “Will water scarcity in semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays?” Environ. Res. Lett., 9(12), 124011.
Scheufele, D. A. (2013). “Communicating science in social settings.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(S3), 14040–14047.
Schneider, S. H. (1992). “The role of the university in interdisciplinary global change research: Structural constraints and the potential for change. An editorial.” Clim. Change, 20(1), vii–x.
Shome, D., et al. (2009). “The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public.” Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia Univ., New York.
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., and Yeo, S. K. (2016). “The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?” Publ. Understanding Sci., 25(4), 400–414.
Suldovsky, B. (2016). “In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences.” Publ. Understanding Sci., 25(4), 415–426.
Theodori, G. L., and Ellis, C. (2017). “Hydraulic fracturing: Assessing self-reported familiarity and the contributions of selected sources to self-reported knowledge.” Extr. Ind. Soc., 4(1), 95–101.
Theodori, G. L., Wynveen, B. J., Fox, W. E., and Burnett, D. B. (2009). “Public perception of desalinated water from oil and gas field operations: Data from Texas.” Soc. Natl. Resour., 22(7), 674–685.
Tidwell, V. C., and van den Brink, C. (2008). “Cooperative modeling: Linking science, communication, and ground water planning.” Ground Water, 46(2), 174–182.
Trench, B., and Miller, S. (2012). “Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training.” Sci. Publ. Policy, 39(6), 722–731.
Ulibarri, N. (2015). “Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: A comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing.” Policy Stud. J., 43(2), 283–308.
Van Der Sanden, M. C., and Meijman, F. J. (2008). “Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches.” Publ. Understanding Sci., 17(1), 89–103.
Walker, G., Cass, N., Burningham, K., and Barnett, J. (2010). “Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of ‘the public’ and their implications.” Environ. Plann. A, 42(4), 931–947.
Warner, N. R., Christie, C. A., Jackson, R. B., and Vengosh, A. (2013). “Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in Western Pennsylvania.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 47(20), 11849–11857.
Weingart, P., Engels, A., and Pansegrau, P. (2016). “Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media.” Publ. Understanding Sci., 9(3), 261–283.
Wong-Parodi, G., Krishnamurti, T., Davis, A., Schwartz, D., and Fischhoff, B. (2016). “A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions.” Nat. Clim. Change, 6(6), 563–569.
Wong-Parodi, G., and Strauss, B. H. (2014). “Team science for science communication.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111(S4), 13658–13663.
Wynne, B. (2006). “Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music?” Commun. Genet., 9(3), 211–220.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 143 • Issue 11 • November 2017
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 2, 2017
Accepted: May 17, 2017
Published online: Sep 1, 2017
Published in print: Nov 1, 2017
Discussion open until: Feb 1, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.