Page 58 - Demo

Chapter 3562017). Contestation in the shale gas case commonly revolves around two types of tensions between conflicting framing: that of shale gas as an economic and energy opportunity or as a threat to the environment, and that of shale gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ to a carbon-free energy future or a delayer of a transition to sustainable energy (Dodge & Metze, 2017). This contestation is reflected in the various discourses – the ‘ensemble(s) of ideas, concepts, and categorizations . . . through which meaning is given to physical and social realities’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 44).In the controversy over shale gas development, there are distinct alternative discourses and discourse coalitions. Discourse coalitions are networks of actors who share a meaning that is given to reality (Hajer, 1995; Metze & Dodge, 2016). This shared meaning of reality is important in the evolvement of policy controversies, as it may dominate how policymakers understand the issue and develop solutions for it (Feindt & Oels, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Hajer & Versteeg, 2005). The study of discourse has developed from being language-centered with a focus on the framing of issues to including various material relationships that establish discourses (Hansen & Machin, 2013). Yet, the role of the visual in the formation of discourse and discourse coalition deserves more attention and opens up particular ways to study the emergence of controversies.In our study, we do not assume visualizations have a universal meaning; rather, they are being used to interpret the world and display it in a particular manner (Rose, 2001, p. 6), and therefore their meaning is negotiated. In a policy controversy, visualizations are used to tell a story that illustrates and depicts an issue. Hence, the study of the visual stories can reveal contested facts, normative concerns, and values that can be used for policy learning (Metze, 2018b). For discourse coalitions, because of their multi-interpretability, visualizations may be able to bridge competing coalitions and possibly also break up these interpretive communities (Metze & Dodge, 2016).We study the shale gas controversy on the internet as the internet discloses online publics that are organized around a controversial issue and may affect the way it is being addressed (Marres & Rogers, 2005). Visualizations that are used by these online publics are part of a ‘web sphere’, an online space that is networked around an issue (see Rogers, 2013). This ‘issue network’, although virtual, is commonly territory-related, especially when controversial issues are debated (Rogers, 2013). Efrat.indd 56 19-09-2023 09:47