ACTIVISTS & NGO'S
The activists and non-governmental organizations, as we can see on the map in the "Actors" section, are mostly organized into national segments primarily combating "fracking" locally. However, the fragmented activist networks have developed a common language about how to talk about "fracking" i.e. what is important when talking about hydraulic fracturing. This page explains the internal workings and relations within the fragmented activist network; first we deal with a word-cloud exemplifying the establishment of a common language across the local actors; second we deal with an explanation of the linking-behaviour between the activist actors.
Take a view on the word-cloud below: Among some of the words used, what is most remarkable, are the use of the word "action". Action, according to the activists, invites for readers of their website to "take action" by either joining cause; thereby receive newsletters and emails from the activist sites, or, transmitting information about "fracking" to friends and family. In other words "action" is about gaining a widespread attention to the subject of "fracking" and also, for the activists, to establish solid ties to the Public sphere (people outside the activist networks).
"Water", as another word used by the activists, is mostly used in connection with words such as "pollution" and "contamination" which is a major concern for the people involved in the activist networks. Finally the word "report" refers to commercial and scientific reports about hydraulic fracturing. The reports mostly pertains uncertainty and need for further investigation on the matter of hydraulic fracturing, shale gas extraction and drilling.
The common language between the activists does not correlate with the way they organize online. For instance, even though they have created a common language, they are still rooted in their respective local areas, combating and "taking action" against their own government. In other words they agree on the subject matter (pollution, water and air contamination and action) but have not (yet?) organized accordingly.
Take a view on the word-cloud below: Among some of the words used, what is most remarkable, are the use of the word "action". Action, according to the activists, invites for readers of their website to "take action" by either joining cause; thereby receive newsletters and emails from the activist sites, or, transmitting information about "fracking" to friends and family. In other words "action" is about gaining a widespread attention to the subject of "fracking" and also, for the activists, to establish solid ties to the Public sphere (people outside the activist networks).
"Water", as another word used by the activists, is mostly used in connection with words such as "pollution" and "contamination" which is a major concern for the people involved in the activist networks. Finally the word "report" refers to commercial and scientific reports about hydraulic fracturing. The reports mostly pertains uncertainty and need for further investigation on the matter of hydraulic fracturing, shale gas extraction and drilling.
The common language between the activists does not correlate with the way they organize online. For instance, even though they have created a common language, they are still rooted in their respective local areas, combating and "taking action" against their own government. In other words they agree on the subject matter (pollution, water and air contamination and action) but have not (yet?) organized accordingly.
The internal organization of the activist network, as mentioned above, does not correlate with the established common language. Underneath this paragraph we show how they link to each other and how the form "national clusters". We have used color-coding to visualize where the actors operate:
Canada
Denmark
United Kingdom
Sweden
France
Other
As a final remark about our color-coding, we are aware that some of them overlap, and actually operate outside their respective national spaces, however, they still tend to form relative isolated clusters according to nation states. But some links have been formed, for instance, the French anti-frack organizations have established a connection to some of the UK anti-frack organizations. Furthermore, some of the national embedded organizations draw on knowledge from international organizations, US experiences or each other, but they do not necessarily link to them.
Canada
Denmark
United Kingdom
Sweden
France
Other
As a final remark about our color-coding, we are aware that some of them overlap, and actually operate outside their respective national spaces, however, they still tend to form relative isolated clusters according to nation states. But some links have been formed, for instance, the French anti-frack organizations have established a connection to some of the UK anti-frack organizations. Furthermore, some of the national embedded organizations draw on knowledge from international organizations, US experiences or each other, but they do not necessarily link to them.
ICT's as weapons in the struggle against hydraulic fracturing?
On the map below our activist actors form clusters apart from each other by creating an explicit link division between themselves, that is, anti-fracking organizations function in their respective countries; Canadian organizations link to other Canadian organizations/communities, Swedish organizations link to other Swedish organizations/communities etc. However, there are two other perspectives in this: 1) all the "national actor groups" tend to acknowledge one specific organization, for instance, all Canadian actors link to "stopfrackingontario.com" but do not link to each other. Hereby they setup a potential spearhead, or "leader", in the local debate about hydraulic fracturing. 2) The "national actor groups" have not yet joined forces in their shared opposition to hydraulic fracturing as a gas extraction method. In this sense the activist actors have not yet, so to speak, established proper Information and Communication Technologies (ICT's) which would unite them to oppose a transnational matter-of-concern such as hydraulic fracturing (Marres & Rogers 2008:252). Even though they draw knowledge, examples and experiences from allover the world, which would activate a steady flow of information across boundaries, they have not yet managed to link to each other. This supports how our emerging controversy slowly evolves, potentially, into a "black boxed" shared uncertainty concerning hydraulic fracturing, or, more precisely a full-blown controversy. Lastly, critically speaking, the distorted ICT's currently established between the activists, have not facilitated the enrollment of their activities in the global network of policy-making and science (Marres & Rogers 2008:254). The idea about ICT's being the way to break exclusionary logics of policy processes worldwide has yet to be materialized by the activist actors, that is, the activist organizations have not yet reversed the top-down policy-making (Marres & Rogers 2008:252). the map below does not show how the activists are connected to the other actor groups, exactly because there is no connection. Otherwise our map in the ACTORS heading shows the divide between the areas of operation and the ICT workings. In connection with the timely evolution of this controversy, where hydraulic fracturing has gained public attention since 2009, the activist networks are still trying to reach the public - and breaking the exclusionary mechanisms of GASH, hereunder, the policy-makers, scientists and company executives.
To maximize click on the "Download File" below the map.
To maximize click on the "Download File" below the map.
activistnetwork.png | |
File Size: | 618 kb |
File Type: | png |