Scientists constitute one of the main actors in the controversy. Above is shown the amount of articles produced during 2001-12 concerning hydraulic fracturing. It is increasing in later years (the reason for the underrepresentation in 2012 is because this graph was made in August. Continue the line and the science production seems to be exponential). Well, one of our preliminary research ideas were to track the inside of science production, giving you a good idea about the amount of publications, the specific research areas and who cites who. Also we wished to show who are the main funding agencies, so as to give you an idea of the relations between academia, public and companies engaged in different aspects of shale gas extraction, but one aspect of working with digital methods is that they sometimes doesn't work. Whenever the system is up we will try to carry this part of our project out.
But looking at the clusters from the main actor map you will notice that scientists seems to be distributed in and around the other actor groups, namely, "Companies" and "Government" as shown below. If we compare these results with the controversy timeline, it is evident that while the scientists were producing articles on hydraulic fracturing during the start of the millennium, and long before (the first article we have found using the "web of knowledge" database being published in 1957) the public on a large scale wasn't introduced/or introducing itself to the network before mid 2009.
We would have wished here to present solid data on the insides of science production, showing you how exactly the hydraulic fracturing controversy is not only a controversy but a technoscientific controversy in the making, but although our own scientific knowledgeproduction machinery is ironically enough dysfunctional at the present, these clusters can actually show two different and very interesting aspects of technoscientific production with regard to this controversy.
The conclusions in the following are not surprising, only a bit disturbing, and are admittingly based on little evidence but a mapping of link relations. But at the bottom of this page we will guide you to a more specific analysis of one particular scientific institution central to the controversy, and from that it should be evident that the following conclusions are not made without recourse to actual formations in the structure of the hydraulic fracturing controversy, and that they therefore are highly relevant for any understanding of the controversy. We are not the first to come to such conclusions, but hey, here it is visualized!
Firstly, that Scientific institutions might be connected to Government institutions in clusters apart from the network. The Danish GEUS (The National Geological Investigations Institute for Denmark and Greenland) are for instance linked with the Danish ministry of Climate and Energy constituting a separate cluster.
The UK Society for Geology are an entirely individual cluster, and surprisingly enough, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) are completely separated from the network, not to a large degree partaking in the controversy.
Secondly, Companies engaged in hydrological fracturing have successfully integrated some science institutions in their network. This is interesting when the timelines and the conclusions from these is taken into account. For sake of comparison, the activist cluster have only successfully managed to engage e very few scientist into their part of the network.
To view the other Actors or to visit the Timeline click on the buttons beneath. More interested in diving into this aspect of scientific and company connections??- read below the buttons.
But looking at the clusters from the main actor map you will notice that scientists seems to be distributed in and around the other actor groups, namely, "Companies" and "Government" as shown below. If we compare these results with the controversy timeline, it is evident that while the scientists were producing articles on hydraulic fracturing during the start of the millennium, and long before (the first article we have found using the "web of knowledge" database being published in 1957) the public on a large scale wasn't introduced/or introducing itself to the network before mid 2009.
We would have wished here to present solid data on the insides of science production, showing you how exactly the hydraulic fracturing controversy is not only a controversy but a technoscientific controversy in the making, but although our own scientific knowledgeproduction machinery is ironically enough dysfunctional at the present, these clusters can actually show two different and very interesting aspects of technoscientific production with regard to this controversy.
The conclusions in the following are not surprising, only a bit disturbing, and are admittingly based on little evidence but a mapping of link relations. But at the bottom of this page we will guide you to a more specific analysis of one particular scientific institution central to the controversy, and from that it should be evident that the following conclusions are not made without recourse to actual formations in the structure of the hydraulic fracturing controversy, and that they therefore are highly relevant for any understanding of the controversy. We are not the first to come to such conclusions, but hey, here it is visualized!
Firstly, that Scientific institutions might be connected to Government institutions in clusters apart from the network. The Danish GEUS (The National Geological Investigations Institute for Denmark and Greenland) are for instance linked with the Danish ministry of Climate and Energy constituting a separate cluster.
The UK Society for Geology are an entirely individual cluster, and surprisingly enough, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) are completely separated from the network, not to a large degree partaking in the controversy.
Secondly, Companies engaged in hydrological fracturing have successfully integrated some science institutions in their network. This is interesting when the timelines and the conclusions from these is taken into account. For sake of comparison, the activist cluster have only successfully managed to engage e very few scientist into their part of the network.
To view the other Actors or to visit the Timeline click on the buttons beneath. More interested in diving into this aspect of scientific and company connections??- read below the buttons.
We promised a more qualitatively based analysis of the aspect of Science and Company network intermingling. The map below represent links between actors, but it only represent links present in the front layer of the webpages. That means that when scientific clusters are outside the larger network, they might be connected anyway, since their link relations could be found on the deeper layers of their pages. That is the case with GASH (Gas Shales in Europe). To read more about GASH press- yeah well...