Page 161 - Demo

References159RVenturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694Venturini, T., Bounegru, L., Gray, J., & Rogers, R. (2018). A reality check(list) for digital methods. New Media and Society, 20(11), 4195–4217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769236Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., Bounegru, L., & Gray, J. (2018). Visual Network Exploration for Data Journalists. In S. A. Eldridge II & B. Franklin (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies (pp. 265–283). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315270449-21Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., & Pereira, D. (2014). Visual network analysis. http://www.tommasoventurini.it/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/Venturini-Jacomy_Visual-Network-Analysis_WorkingPaper.pdfVerhoeven, I., & Metze, T. (2022). Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation. Policy Sciences, 55(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09459-1Wagenaar, H. (2015). Meaning in Action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Routledge.Waller, L., & Gugganig, M. (2021). Re-visioning public engagement with emerging technology: A digital methods experiment on ‘vertical farming.’ Public Understanding of Science, 30(5), 588-604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521990977Weible, C., Heikkila, T., Ingold, K., & Fischer, M. (2016). Introduction. In C. Weible, T. Heikkila, K. Ingold, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe (pp. 1–28). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59574-4Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R., & Curtis, S. (2017). Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595159Williams, L., & Sovacool, B. K. (2019). The discursive politics of ‘fracking’: Frames, storylines, and the anticipatory contestation of shale gas development in the United Kingdom. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101935. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101935Williams, L., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Energy democracy, dissent and discourse in the party politics of shale gas in the United Kingdom. Environmental Politics, 29(7), 1239–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1740555Wolf, E. E. A., & Dooren, W. Van. (2021). Fatal remedies. How dealing with policy conflict can backfire in a context of trust-erosion. Governance, 34(4), 1097–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12630Wozniak, A., Wessler, H., & Lück, J. (2017). Who Prevails in the Visual Framing Contest about the United Nations Climate Change Conferences? Journalism Studies, 18(11), 1433–1452. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1131129Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Sage Publications.Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-Interpretive Methods in Policy Research. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 405–415). CRC Press.Yigitcanlar, T., Kankanamge, N., Regona, M., Maldonado, A. R., Rowan, B., Ryu, A., Desouza, K. C., Corchado, J. M., Mehmood, R., & Li, R. Y. M. (2020). Artificial intelligence technologies and related urban planning and development concepts: How are they perceived and utilized in Australia? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040187Efrat.indd 159 19-09-2023 09:47