Page 62 - Demo

Chapter 360Figure 3.1. Four forms of discourse coalition evolution (adapted from Metze & Dodge, 2016).3.3 Method of investigating the visual controversyTo explore how visualizations influence dynamics within a discourse coalition and between competing discourse coalitions in the shale gas controversy, we turned to the internet, as it is a source of studying society (Rogers, 2013) and a realm where controversial issues are debated (Marres & Rogers, 2005). We gathered data from webpages in the three selected internet regions. In the three regions, the two similar aforementioned discursive tensions are observed, one between the framing of shale gas as an economic opportunity and as an environmental risk, and another between the framing of shale gas as a transition fuel and as a delayer of the transition to renewables (De Wit, 2011; Dodge & Metze, 2017). However, in the literature, next to a similarity in mechanisms capable of influencing the dynamics of the controversy (see Metze & Dodge, 2016), notable regional differences are reported in the framing of the issue and the concerns about it; for example, in the USA the job-opportunity versus boom–bust economy framing was important (Dodge & Lee, 2017; Howell et al., 2017), in the Netherlands, ‘business as usual’ was a dominant frame when the controversy over shale gas arose (Metze, 2017), whereas, in South Africa, water shortages were a main environmental issue Efrat.indd 60 19-09-2023 09:47