Drilling into controversy: the educational complexity of shalegas development

Joseph A. Henderson & Don Duggan-Haas

Published online: 8 January 2014# AESS 2014

Abstract Potential development of shale gas presents acomplicated and controversial education problem. Researchon human learning and our own experiences as educatorssupport the conclusion that traditional, disciplinary-focusededucational experiences are insufficient due to the nature ofthe concepts necessary for understanding the developmentof shale gas within the energy system as a complex,contextualized phenomenon. Educators engaging in com-municating complex phenomena such as shale gas devel-opment can also increase sophistication of learner under-standing by taking into account the sociocultural and psy-chological mechanisms that shape one’s understanding ofthe change processes at work. We therefore review anemerging body of research showing that nurturing environ-mental literacy requires more than the clear explication ofevidence, and instead requires interrogating one’s existingworldview and comparing alternative options for action, asopposed to analyzing energy options in isolation. We thenapply the results of this research to the challenging task ofcreating meaningful learning experiences and engagementwith complex issues such as emerging energy systems andshale gas development in particular.

Keywords Natural gas . Fracking . Energy . Environmentaleducation . Complexity

Stepping outside the bubble

It was a diverse group at a professional developmentmeeting that Joe had organized, formal and informaleducators working with learners of all ages, but we allshared a common interest in informal science educa-tion, and most had some interest in environmental orsustainability education. I was neither in the communitywhere I live, nor the community where I work, but nottoo far, geographically, from either. I learned quickly,however, that I was outside of the Fracking Bubble.In the informal chitchat before our discussions began,I was asked what I’d be talking about. I said, “TheMarcellus Shale,” and was asked, more or less, whatthat was about. I responded that I’d be talking aboutthe Marcellus Shale, the natural gas within it andabout the related controversy. Then I was asked,“How do they get the gas out?” I don’t recall exactlywhat I said, but I was surprised that whatever it wasseemed to be outside of the paradigm of whom I wasspeaking to (another informal educator, from a zoo).He asked, “What’s it called?” I didn’t get what the“it” of the question was. “The process,” he said.“What do they call the process used to get the gasout?” “Hydraulic fracturing?” I said. “Fracking?”he asked. “Yes, though we try to use the scientificterminology when we talk about it,” I said trying tomask my surprise that he was unfamiliar with theother labels I’d used.I’d been rubbing my nose in the energy system foralmost 2 years at that point, and working shoulder toshoulder with others doing the same. Many of myfriends at home in Buffalo, New York (I telecommute toIthaca, New York) are involved in the environmentalcommunity and here too, interest ran high—and

J. A. Henderson (*)The Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and HumanDevelopment, University of Rochester, Box 270425, Rochester,NY 14627, USAe-mail: joseph.henderson@warner.rochester.edu

D. Duggan-HaasThe Paleontological Research Institution, 1259 Trumansburg Rd,Ithaca, NY 14850, USAe-mail: dad55@cornell.edu

J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96DOI 10.1007/s13412-013-0161-9

Author's personal copy

suspicions as well. Most of the people outside of where Iwork had clear and strong opinions about the appro-priateness of extracting natural gas from the MarcellusShale by means of horizontal high-volume, slickwaterhydraulic fracturing. Or at least I felt that most peoplehad such opinions, when in reality it was just the peoplethat I interacted with regularly—not most of the people.Every now and then, I’d find myself surprised to beoutside of the Fracking Bubble, as I was again on thisday.—Don

As environmental and science educators working on thetopic of shale gas development we are often peppered with thefollowing questions in our programming:What is fracking? Isit bad?What doyou think about it?These are simple questionswith complicated answers. We believe, as educators, that weneed to ask richer questions, for shale gas development doesnot exist in isolation. Although many people are drawn to thesimple (and important) questions above, we suggest that per-haps a better question might be: Is fracking more or less badfor the environment than other ways we now get energy ormight reasonably get energy in the near future? Our educa-tional response is counterintuitive, especially for educatorswho generally seek to simplify complex ideas for learners asthey dip their toes into the energy system. Instead, we work tocomplexify the seemingly simple, as this is the more educa-tionally appropriate way to approach the issue if we wantbetter-informed citizens who can actually engage in collabo-rative dialog and decision-making about issues such as shalegas development that can have profound impacts on theircommunities. This paper is our attempt to bring educationalcomplexity to unconventional shale gas development.1

A fundamental challenge of shale gas education is thepolarizing nature of the issue. As informal educators workingwith diverse sets of stakeholders in our geographic area, wehave found that many of the people who engage with the issuealign very quickly as either strongly for drilling or strongly

against it, and that they tend to make rapid judgments at theexpense of a richer and more productive conversation (Fig. 1).Still others fall into a category of folks similar to the curiousconversant in Don’s earlier story: interested and yet largelyunaware. Our anecdotal experiences are supported by recentresearch from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communi-cation (Boudet et al. 2013; Clarke et al. 2013) that found thatmost people in the USA know very little about fracking, butthat those who are informed on the topic tend to have highlypolarized views of the issue. Our experiences and these find-ings point to a two-pronged educational problem. First, thegeneral public remains relatively ignorant about a major newsource of energy. Second, those informed about the topic arestrongly divided in their views. Such a social reality is educa-tionally challenging, for while some people are highly motivat-ed and knowledgeable in a polarized fashion, others are largelyunaware of fracking and the larger energy system at all.

The main goal of this paper is to provide guidance foreducators navigating the new energy landscape across a vari-ety of contexts. Toward this end, we begin by examining thedisciplinary complexity of the development of unconventionalfossil fuel deposits and review implications for more tradi-tional, formal educational institutions. We leverage researchfrom the National Research Council on human learning anddevelop recommendations accordingly. We also realize thatmany readers interact with unconventional fossil fuel devel-opment outside traditional educational institutions, so weexpand our analysis to include informal education contexts.Broadening the perspective involves exploring relevant socio-cultural and psychological principles as they relate to shale gasdevelopment. We make five educational recommendations for

Fig. 1 Graffiti in Ithaca, New York. Photograph by first author

1 While many at the poles of this polarizing issue may see it in simpleterms, little is simple about it, including the terminology we use tocommunicate. In the vernacular, horizontal high-volume, slickwater hy-draulic fracturing is commonly referred to as simply “fracking,” or“hydrofracking.” While acknowledging this colloquial language, weprimarily use other labels in this article. Fracking, hydrofracking, orhydraulic fracturing all refer to the same single process in the suite oftechnologies that is rapidly changing energy production in the USA. Thisrefers to using fluids at high pressure to fracture rocks allowing gas or oilto flow through these cracks. Such technology has been around fordecades. The fact that drilling can be done horizontally is also not terriblynew, but putting them together and using millions of gallons of chemi-cally treated water to do the fracturing is considerably newer. The tech-nology of horizontal high-volume, slickwater hydraulic fracturing is oneof several unconventional energy production methods that have increasedsubstantially in use in the last few decades. It was no easy task to select alabel that concisely conveys the range of unconventional energy devel-opment technologies in question. Recognizing there is no perfect solu-tion, we primarily use “shale gas development” in this paper.

88 J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96

Author's personal copy

professionals working on the topic of shale gas development,and we hope that this analysis will help experts and laypeoplealike examine their own place in the larger energy field. Oursuggestions are listed in Table 1, and rationales for each aredeveloped sequentially in the text.

Shale gas, educational institutions, and human learning

Formal, institution-based educators should consider an inter-disciplinary, systems approach to teaching about something ascomplicated as shale gas development and the larger energysystem. Such topics are particularly difficult phenomena tosituate within formal educational institutions (e.g., traditionalK-12 schools, colleges, and universities), as traditional insti-tutional norms keep disciplines apart and therefore make theteaching of complicated environmental topics challenging(Martina et al. 2009; Orr 1994). In many high schools in theUSA, for example, environmental issues are commonly rele-gated to upper-level environmental science courses taken by aslim minority of school-age students (College Board 2012).Energy production and its associated sociocultural variablesinvolve interdisciplinary concepts that do not neatly fit withindisciplinary structures. Further, shale gas development in-volves economic and political examination, and these issuesbecome marginalized when complex environmental issues arenarrowly viewed through the lens of scientific inquiry(Agrawal 2005; Berry 2001; Murray Li 2007).

Many people are suddenly interested in where their energycomes from, and the environmental, economic, and socialimpacts of energy production and use. Thus, shale gas devel-opment presents a teachable moment. Shale, and the naturalgas within it, cannot be deeply understood without situating itwithin the context of a number of broader systems, includingthe Earth’s geological history, the larger energy system, theclimate system, and social and economic systems, for

example. Educators working within the boundaries of formalinstitutions need to be aware of the limitations of disciplinarycontexts and work to both cross and transcend the boundariesset by such institutional norms. In Table 2, we list some of theacademic disciplines that relate to a holistic understanding ofshale gas development to help facilitate crossing these disci-plinary boundaries.

Each of the disciplines in Table 2 is connected in somemeaningful way to all of the other disciplines. We urge edu-cators to bridge educational and institutional divides andengage their students in the study of not simply these disci-plines but, just as importantly, the relationships among them.This leads to our first pedagogical recommendation:

1. Understand that traditional educational institutions areoften not geared toward interdisciplinarity. Work to tran-scend disciplinary boundaries to provide a richer under-standing of the systemic nature of shale gas development.

While formal educational institutions present unique chal-lenges for educating about shale gas development, informalinstitutions (e.g., museums, nature centers, cooperative exten-sions, town boards, and mass media) also face challenges inengaging the broader public. In the following sections, wereview some of the germane literature on human learningrelated to these challenges.

The implications of How People Learn

We consider anyone speaking with any authority on shale gasdevelopment to be an educator working within and across abroad range of formal and informal educational contexts. Wealso assume, based on a broad body of educational literature,that human beings are constantly learning regardless of con-text (National Research Council 2009; Sosniak 2001). In2000, the National Research Council (NRC) released a com-prehensive review of research on human learning titled HowPeople Learn (Donovan et al. 1999) that developed a series ofsuggestions for educators to design more effective learningenvironments. While this research is geared primarily towardformal classroom teachers, the educational implications are

Table 1 Recommendations for shale gas educators

1. Understand that traditional educational institutions are often not gearedtoward interdisciplinarity.Work to transcend disciplinary boundaries toprovide a richer understanding of the systemic nature of shale gasdevelopment.

2. Recognize that learners come with preconceived notions of how theworld works. These must be identified, respected and wrestled with ifan educational experience is going to work toward a more nuancedunderstanding of shale gas development.

3. Allow people to protect self worth so that you do not unnecessarilystifle conversation.

4. Draw attention to complexifying the seemingly simple and also to thesimple bottom line message: We need to use less energy to diminishfuture risk.

5. Use a place-based approach as a starting point to engage in criticalinquiry of the forces working to shape that place (e.g., geology,ecology, capital flows, law, etc.).

Table 2 The interdisciplinary nature of shale gas development

Geology Chemistry Biology

Physics Climatology Ecology

Toxicology Human health Transportation

Economics Mathematics Geography

Civics Engineering Communication

Law Government Media literacy

History Psychology Education

Political science Anthropology Sociology

J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96 89

Author's personal copy

about the general nature of learning and are therefore trans-ferable to informal educators.2 Based on an expansive reviewof the educational research, the NRC advances two key find-ings for designing educational environments that are germaneto our goal in this paper3:

1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptionsabout how the world works. If their initial understandingis not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new conceptsand information that are taught or they may learn them forpurposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions out-side the classroom.

2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must:

(a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge(b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a con-

ceptual framework(c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval

and application. (Donovan et al. 1999, p. 10–12).

First, an educator needs to acknowledge that each learnercomes with a set of assumptions about how the world works.Toward this end, it is important to understand that individualssituate themselves, and are situated, in relation to the largersocial and material world and develop their understandingsand identities via dynamic learning processes over time.4

Educators cannot engage learners in effective education with-out addressing the preconceptions and misconceptions thatothers might have on the topic, and these are often related toa preconceived worldview. It is important to remember that anindividual’s initial conception of a topic may or may notaccord with accepted scientific consensus, and ideologicalpositions are commonly held regardless of evidentiarywarrant.5

Traditional models of education typically assume a “bank-ing” model of learning, where the learner is seen as a blankslate upon which a more knowledgeable teacher inscribesinformation (Freire 1993). Research in cultural cognition nowsuggests that this approach fails, and in the case of controversialenvironmental issues, may actually undermine educational ef-forts as learners retreat to the safety of their original world-views, thus reinforcing misconceptions about the nature of theworld (Kahan et al. 2012; Lewandowsky et al. 2012). Instead,learners need to be prompted to examine the evolution of theirthinking and to examine when their current understandingmight be inadequate. “The ability to recognize the limits ofone’s current knowledge, then take steps to remedy the situa-tion, is extremely important for learners at all ages” (Bransford2000, p. 47). Failure to engage in such reflective learningactivity complicates efforts made by educators to address thecomplexity of an issue like shale gas development.

The second NRC recommendation speaks to understand-ing the shale gas development relative to larger phenomena.Through our involvement in dozens of programs for both thegeneral public and for educators, we have found that engaginglearners on the risks associated with all types of energy stim-ulates a generative conversation around energy and largersystemic concepts like economics, politics, and communitychange. By then, showing how a concept (e.g., transportation)works across multiple energy sources, learners are able tonavigate energy production and consumption relative to theseother concepts (e.g., transportation policies). Reframing helpsdrive the conversation out of isolation and toward nuancedcomplexity. This is one of the reasons that we try to guideconversations toward a richer question in our work: Isfracking more or less bad for the environment than other wayswe now get energy or might reasonably get energy in the nearfuture? Reframing hydrofracturing in this way allows us, aseducators, to contextualize it within a broader systemic frame-work, thereby allowing learners to develop comparisons be-tween other, pre-existing energy production methods, novelmethods, and their subsequent implications. That is, broaden-ing the conversation widens the educational context.

These NRC findings then inform our secondrecommendation:

2. Recognize that learners come with preconceived notionsof how the world works. These must be identified,respected, and wrestled with if an educational experienceis going to work toward a more nuanced understanding ofshale gas development.

It is not enough to merely present information and expectthat that action will influence another’s understanding of anissue as complex as shale gas energy development. We know,based on the work of Clarke et al. (2013), that the publicknows little about so-called “fracking” processes and their

2 We also are familiar with research specifically targeting informal edu-cators including Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in InformalEnvironments (Fenichel and Schweingruber 2009) and Learning Sciencein Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (NationalResearch Council 2009). This work complements the research citedabove.3 A third recommendation involves assessing metacognitive competencein particular subject areas. Detailing the implications of this recommen-dation is beyond the aim of this article. However, we recommend APrivate Universe: Minds of Our Own (Sadler et al. 2003) for more onthis dimension of human learning.4 This “situating” phenomenon has different names depending on thebody of literature wrestling with the concept, and can be referred to asone’s lifeworld (Habermas 1984; Lim and Barton 2006), positionality(Holland et al. 2001), habitus (Bourdieu 1977), identity (Crompton andKasser 2009; Gee 2000), or worldview (Kahan and Braman 2006), toname a few examples across diverse fields of study. While the differentnames indicate that these are not all precisely the same thing, they arelabels for closely related phenomena.5 See McCright and Dunlap (2011) for an example of how identity drivesclimate science denial and Clarke et al. (2013) for how similar dynamicsinteract with knowledge of shale gas development.

90 J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96

Author's personal copy

implications, and that those who do tend to polarize based onsupport or rejection. Such a dynamic presents a unique oppor-tunity for educators to inform a public that is relatively igno-rant of such issues. This cannot occur in isolation, for theenergy system does not exist in isolation. It is connected toeverything else. Learners can be prompted with this reality inmind, and we have attempted to engage them in such com-plexity in our recent work (Duggan-Haas et al. 2013).

In the above, we have offered some suggestions for howeducators might begin broadly addressing the challenges ofeducating about an issue as complex as shale gas develop-ment. In the following sections, we attend to the more com-plicated challenge: dealing with those who have already madeup their mind.

Of idiots and jerks: a second vignette

I was tabling for the Paleontological Research Institu-tion (PRI) and its Museum of the Earth at an environ-mental event hosted by a local college. As an activemember in the environmental community, I knew manyof the presenters and attendees. Our table includedinformation on a range of programs, but most of thetable’s real estate, and almost all of the discussion withattendees focused on fracking. I had back-to-back con-versations with two acquaintances—one stronglysupporting hydrofracturing, the other strongly opposed.And I was trying to navigate the complexity.It didn’t take long in my conversation with the pro-frackerto hear him deriding those at the other pole as essentiallyidiots. I don’t believe he ever used that word, but “stupid”came up more than once, and his body language andtone of voice made his dismissiveness clear. Within mi-nutes of his moving on, the anti-fracker appeared. Wetalked for a while about the PRI and the Museum’s workrelated to the Marcellus Shale deposit in particular,including our non-advocacy position,6 and how we are

striving to help people understand the shale gas devel-opment in the context of the broader energy system. I wastold that I wasn’t as bad as others advocating for drilling,and I responded that what we are advocating for isevidence-based understanding, not for or against dril-ling. I was then told that anyone who is pro-fracking isgreedy and a jerk. Again, the body language and tone ofvoice reinforced the sentiment. That left me again, alone,trying to navigate the complexity.—Don

Social, cultural, and psychological dynamics

In addition to overcoming the disciplinary limits within formaleducational settings and increasing one’s sensitivity to howhumans actually learn, we believe that educators need to beaware of the sociocultural and psychological dynamics thatcomplicate efforts to communicate and educate about shalegas development. In this section, we focus on the role ofparticular cognitive biases and their influence on one’s abilityto evaluate information, including the assessments of risk atwork in the above vignette. As potential shale gas develop-ment involves tangible social, economic, and environmentalrisks, we discuss how these dynamics play out and offersuggestions for navigating this complicated terrain.

Averting loss and evaluating risk

Consider the second vignette. Both acquaintances are by anymeasure scientifically and environmentally literate—bothhold advanced science degrees and have worked in scientificfields for much of their professional careers. Both have stud-ied the shale gas development in depth and can tell you a greatdeal of accurate technical information. And they still funda-mentally disagree. The primary area of disagreement is aboutrisk. One sees risk as an issue that has been thoroughlyaddressed and is not a concern given the state of industrypractice and governmental regulation. The other sees suchthinking as a sort of blasphemy—that safe practice is impos-sible related to this technology.

For both, their positions are partially grounded in relevantscience, but importantly also grounded in their senses of self.Their visibly defensive reactions are adaptations aimed atameliorating threats to self-integrity. While these defensesare adaptive in terms of identity protection, they can bemaladaptive if they prevent important learning (Sherman andCohen 2006). Individuals conform their appraisals of infor-mation “in a manner that buttresses beliefs associated withbelonging to particular groups” (Kahan et al. 2007, p. 6). Suchidentity protection is conceptually connected to other defensemechanisms and to certain biases. Change is an uncomfortableprocess, and radical change tends to be existentially

6 In presentations and materials related to the Marcellus Shale, the Mu-seum of the Earth uses the following statement regarding bias:

In our outreach related to the Marcellus Shale, the Museum of theEarth will not take a position supporting or opposing drilling in theMarcellus Shale. A fundamental goal of our work is to provideevidence-based information and to build understanding of the sciencerelated to the Shale, the extraction techniques employed in gas recoveryfrom the Shale, and associated environmental impacts. Project partnersalso help nurture understandings of the economic and cultural impacts ofdecisions related to Marcellus Shale development. We strive to do thiswork with as little bias as possible.

More information about our Marcellus Shale outreach efforts can befound here: http://www.museumoftheearth.org/

J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96 91

Author's personal copy

threatening, so people tend to resist it. Social psychologistsand economists have a term for this phenomenon: status quobias (Eidelman and Crandall 2012; Kahneman et al. 1991;Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988). The second individual inthis vignette is engaging in status quo bias. The preference forthe status quo is a consequence of loss aversion (Kahneman2011, p. 291). While preferring the status quo is an intuitiveconcept, we believe that it plays an important role in howlearners process shale gas information. This leads to anothereducational recommendation:

3. Allow people to protect self-worth so that you do notunnecessarily stifle conversation.

By showing respect to audience concerns and affirmingrelevant worldviews (Lewandowsky et al. 2012), and thenreframing the related issues, the self-defense mechanisms ofidentity-protective cognition are somewhat disarmed. For ex-ample, while both individuals described in the vignette (andboth authors of this article) have affiliations with environmen-tal communities, these are not the only affiliations that definethem. Both characters in the vignette have had long careers inthe sciences, one in the life sciences, the other in the physicalsciences, but their identities are surely more complex. Eachwould likely have been dismissive of the other’s position, hadthey heard it. In our experience, opposing parties can becomemore entrenched after such encounters, partly as a result ofattacks to identity. However, identities are always under con-struction (Holland et al. 2001) and as educators, we need to besensitive to the development of identities over time so as to notstifle debate around important topics.

Motivated reasoning and epistemic closure

In addition to status quo bias, risk aversion and the preferencefor the familiar, we believe that confirmation bias is a relatedissue for shale gas education. Humans like to think (and muchscientific and economic theory is predicated upon the notion)that we are rational actors when making decisions (Sen 1977;Von Neumann and Morgenstern 2007). Research in socialpsychology and behavioral economics shows that this is notthe case (Tversky and Kahneman 1986; Kahneman 2011).Rather, “[c]ontrary to the rules of philosophers of science,who advise testing hypotheses by trying to refute them, people(and scientists, quite often) seek data that are likely to becompatible with the beliefs they currently hold” (Kahneman2011, p. 81). One observes this phenomenon at work in therecent controversies surrounding the institutions of higher ed-ucation that are examining shale gas development. CornellUniversity, The Pennsylvania State University, SUNY Buffalo,and University of Texas at Austin have become politicized asdifferent researchers release studies into the public realm. Most

notable is the controversy over the Howarth et al. (2011) studyon the methane impacts of hydrofracturing, which has beenboth discredited by the prodrilling community andoverwhelm-ingly supported by the antifracking community.7 This “cherry-picking” of evidence is prevalent elsewhere, with similar issuesoccurring around wind energy (National Research Council2007) and climate science (Oreskes and Conway 2010) inaddition to shale gas development (Klemow 2012).

Our intention here is not to speak to the validity of anyparticular scientific study, but instead to point out how thesestudies are used to justify particular positions. Such actionproduces a form of motivated reasoning, where learners ac-tively seek out information to confirm previously held beliefs.Social scientists refer to this as engaging in a sort of epistemicclosure (Fu et al. 2007) by which individuals increasinglyexist within closed information systems and develop under-standings about the world accordingly, regardless of the va-lidity of their beliefs. This is a persistent problem in ourexperience and one that is unlikely to resolve anytime soon,especially given the increasingly fractured media environmentthat plays to people’s predispositions and vested interests(Figs. 2 and 3).

Among the goals in our education work is a slowing downof the thought process, to investigate our “gut” responsesanalytically or, to use the terms of Daniel Kahneman (2011),to help people move from thinking primarily with System 1 tothinking with System 2. System 1 refers to mental processesthat are quick and automatic and that operate with little or noeffort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2 requiresconcentration and System 1 does not (Kahneman 2011, p. 21).System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activitiesthat demand it, including complex analysis. It is this complex-ity that we now turn attention toward.

Complexifying the seemingly simple

Understanding the comparative risks of energy production isfundamental to successful shale gas education, and the afore-mentioned cognitive biases are substantial hurdles. We arecautiously optimistic that strategies that include addressinglearners’ primary concerns and then shifting attention to richerquestions have the potential to yield more thorough evaluationof shale gas development. That involves answering the mostobvious question, “Is fracking bad for the environment?”witha clear “yes,” and then moving on to a more complex ques-tion: Is fracking more or less bad for the environment thanother ways we now get energy or might reasonably get energyin the near future?Such framing stimulates the more complexexamination of shale gas development relative to larger

7 See Revkin (2012) and Wilber (2012) for additional details on theHowarth controversy.

92 J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96

Author's personal copy

energy system dynamics. Therefore, in this section, we turnour focus toward the complexity of the energy system ingeneral.

Understanding shale gas development within the energysystem is a complicated endeavor because some of the mostproblematic issues associated with energy production havebeen externalized from many communities where energy de-velopment is a major controversy. In our home state of NewYork, for example, there is no coal mining and while com-mercial gas drilling here dates to 1825, the scale of in-state gasproduction is small compared with other states. We consumeenergy that is largely produced elsewhere, under conditionslargely hidden from us (Pink 2011; Sovacool and Brown2010). Coastal Massachusetts, where wind development iscontroversial, also depends on distant energy sources. WhileColorado has substantial energy production, it is not in theareas where the shale gas controversy is most pronounced.The environmental and social costs of energy production arelargely externalized and invisible from end consumers.

Disadvantages of shale gas development include possiblewater contamination, industrialization of rural landscapes and

associated noise, air pollution and truck traffic, leakage of apowerful greenhouse gasses, the continued burning of fossilfuels, boom-bust economic cycles, altered sociocultural patterns,and much more. It is understandable why the status quo is thenpreferable for many in energy-producing communities. NIMBY-ism can then be understood as a desire to conserve the status quo.Advantages include that gas is potentially cleaner burning thancoal both in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and in terms ofother pollutants at least in terms of air pollution (see, for example,Caiazzo et al. 2013), that catastrophic accidents on the scale ofthe Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Upper Big Branch Minedisaster, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are madehighly unlikely by the distributed nature of gas drilling, and theinfusion of jobs and capital into local economies. Further, theenergy supply is domestic and near major markets. Advantagestend to be more global than local, making the advantages (savecertain economic ones) more distant and abstract.

Industrial society is a relatively recent phenomenon, and onethat relies on copious amounts of energy for its continued main-tenance.Maintaining this way of life depends upon the continuedproduction and consumption of energy, without which societycould not exist in its current form (Martinez and Ebenhack 2008;Tainter 1990).8 Carbon-based energy sources like coal and con-ventional oil are becoming increasingly difficult to develop andhave immense social, climatological, and economic costs (Smil2008; Tainter and Patzek 2012). And because renewable energysources like wind and solar are less energy dense, expandingthese as viable sources would necessitate greater spatial distribu-tion across landscapes and built communities in the near term(Smil 2008). With the advent of new shale-gas drilling technol-ogies and markets, the Marcellus and other comparable shaleformations are increasingly feeding industrial society’s hungerfor energy. This energy reality leads to another recommendation:

4. Draw attention to complexifying the seemingly simpleand also to the simple bottom line message: We need touse less energy to diminish future risk.

Recognize that opposing one thing with intent often meansthe unintentional support of something else. This can be thebeginning of complexification, as well as a strong way toconnect to the range of impacts associated with large-scaleenergy production from any source. That, in turn, points to theneed to reduce energy consumption. A single large nuclearpower plant produces as much electricity as 2 large gas-firedpower plants, 3,000 large windmills, 2 to 4 large coal powerplants, or 50 square miles of photovoltaics.9 Which of these is

9 Generating capacity for anyUS power units can be found at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ (United States Energy Information Administration,2012). See also Alley (2012).

Fig. 3 Advertisement from America’s Natural Gas Alliance’s ThinkAbout It campaign. Text reads, “The Burgett family has helped supporttheir farm with the safe production of natural gas on their land. Thinkabout it.” Available online at http://anga.us/advertising/print-ads#.UafF9WTEpOE (America’s Natural Gas, 2012)

Fig. 2 Excerpt from The Flowback: The Costly Consequences ofHydrofracking (Reynolds 2012)

8 Whether or not it is wise to continue our current level of development isbeyond the aim of this article. Refer to Speth (2008) and Dodds (2008) formore on this question.

J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96 93

Author's personal copy

worst? Answering this complex question, a cousin to thequestion above, requires weighing an array of factors as thenature of social and environmental impacts from all of theseenergy sources are both huge and fundamentally differentfrom one another.

Grounding in place to examine larger patterns

In our own work, we have found that educators and learnersalike struggle to understand the systems and contexts withinwhich they exist. Don begins presentations by asking theaudience to identify the two largest energy sources for electricgeneration within New York. That question has now beenasked of more than 30 audiences, totaling over 2,000 individ-uals. No audience fared better than 5 % correctly identifyingnatural gas and nuclear as the two largest sources (US DOEEIA 2012). Our own understanding of the broader energysystem still has aspects of naiveté. It was only in October of2012 that the authors recognized, thanks to more explicit datarepresentations on EIA.gov, that natural gas was not only thelargest source of energy for electric generation in New York,but also the largest energy source for meeting all energy needswithin the state.

Why do people not have basic knowledge of energy sys-tems?We suspect that this is because many of the systems thatwe rely upon are hidden from view. This produces a sort of“normalization” effect (Foucault 1977; May and Finch 2009)that systematically hides phenomena.10 The sociologist AllanJohnson explains how this process produces a “luxury ofobliviousness,” where one has “the freedom to live unawareof what you’re participating in and how and with what effect”(Johnson 2008, p. 180). Our experience educating about shalegas development has provided us with numerous examples ofthis phenomenon, especially as it relates to energy production,consumption and throughput effects. At a basic level, many ofus are simply unaware of what undergirds modern life, and theimplications of our own existence (Henderson 2014). This is amajor challenge for educators.

We realize that knowledge of the world is always partial. It isthrough educational processes that we come to understandourselves relative to others and the natural world. Recently,the field of environmental education has advanced a robusttheory and pedagogy of place-based education (PBE) to coun-teract this disconnection.11 The assumption underlying thisapproach is that human beings inhabit places that are situatedwithin, and interact with, larger social and environmental

phenomena. PBE aims to connect learners with their commu-nities to critically make sense of their place in the world. Giventhe magnitude of issues facing both localities and global soci-ety, such a scalar educational approach increasingly makessense (Hursh and Henderson 2011; McKenzie 2012). Thisleads to our final recommendation:

5. Use a place-based approach as a starting point to engagein critical inquiry of the forces working to shape that place(e.g., geology, ecology, capital flows, law, etc.).

An individual’s immediate community then provides aspringboard for understanding the situated complexity of larg-er issues, like energy development, that also impacts otherplaces. We live above the Marcellus Shale deposit. We alsolive in a time where recent advances in shale gas drillingtechnologies have suddenly thrust this geologic deposit outof millions of years of isolation and into a complex system ofsocial, economic, and environmental relationships. Our com-munities are now part of something much larger. In our place-based educational work, we refer to the “Marcellus Shalesystem,” the set of natural and human systems connected totheMarcellus Shale and the natural gas within it. This includesbut is not limited to the geologic formation itself, and thecontext and processes that created and altered it; the techno-logical tools and processes related to its analysis and theextraction of the gas within it; and the broader energy systemand the social, educational, cultural, esthetic, and economicsystems connected to the Marcellus Shale. By studying ourmost accessible environment, our here and the now, we arebuilding our own understandings and hopefully those withwhom we work in an attempt to contextualize shale gasdevelopment within broader contexts.

Key takeaways and next steps

Over the course of this article, we have elaborated upon someof the issues that shape the educational dimensions of shalegas energy development. We have developed a number ofrecommendations to take into account when educating aboutshale gas development. Rather than simply answering theobvious question “Is fracking bad for the environment?”,educators of all types should shift the conversation towardgreater richness and nuance. We believe that such conversa-tions are possible and necessary for examining the complexityof the modern energy system and its implications for theplaces where people live.

Writing about the conservative disposition, the Englishphilosopher Michael Oakeshott (1962) stated that “to be con-servative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, toprefer the tried to the untried…” (p. 169). Developing uncon-ventional shale gas reservoirs like the Marcellus Shale, for

10 See Pachirat (2011) for an example of how this phenomenon manifestsin the meat industry.11 A discussion of PBE is beyond the aim of this article, but we recom-mend Gruenewald (2003), Gruenewald and Smith (2008), Sobel (2004),Smith (2002), and Thomashow (2002) for more on PBE philosophy andpedagogy.

94 J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96

Author's personal copy

example, means altering the social fabric and natural dynam-ics of surrounding ecosystems and communities. It is impor-tant that educators working within this system remain sensi-tive to the dynamics of this change process and engage it withthe richness and humility that it deserves.

We do not pretend that educating about something ascontroversial as shale gas development will be easy. Norshould it, for there are real social, economic, and environmen-tal risks associated with developing it as an energy source. Ifwe want to maintain our current level of social and materialcomplexity, shale gas drilling has to enter a conversationrelative to other forms of energy, from coal and oil to windand solar, especially in light of our present climate reality andconditions of unsustainability. Another fracking author,Seamus McGraw (2011), likes to quip that it is necessary tohave these difficult conversations lest we risk “drowning inthe viscera of all our gored oxen” (in Smith 2012). As educa-tors, we have no choice but to engage with the complexity ofshale gas drilling.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thankBethKinne, ThomasLove, Ken Klemow, David Hursh, Natalie Macquire, Tracey Henderson,and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous drafts. Thismaterial is based upon work supported by the grants from the NationalScience Foundation (NSF GEO-1016359 and 1035078). Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Agrawal A (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and themaking of subjects. Duke University, Durham

Alley RB (2012) Earth: the operators’ manual. PBS. http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/. Accessed 22 Aug 2013

America’s Natural Gas Alliance (2012) Think About It campaign adver-tisement. http://anga.us/advertising/print-ads#.UafF9WTEpOE.Accessed 30 May 2013

Berry W (2001) Life is a miracle: an essay against modern superstition.Counterpoint, New York

Boudet H, Clarke CE, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf R,Leiserowitz A (2013) “Fracking” controversy and communication:using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hy-draulic fracturing. Energy Policy. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017i

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University,Cambridge

Bransford J (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, andschool. National Academy, Washington

Caiazzo F, Ashok A, Waitz IA, Yim SHL, Barrett SRH (2013) Airpollution and early deaths in the United States. Part I: quantifyingthe impact of major sectors in 2005. Atmos Environ 79:198–208.doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.081

Clarke CE, Boudet HS, Bugden D (2013) Fracking in the American mind:Americans’ views on hydraulic fracturing in September, 2012. YaleUniversity and George Mason University. New Haven. http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/reports. Accessed 29 May 2013

College Board. (2012) AP examination volume changes (2002–2012)[Data file]. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2012_exam_volume_change.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2012

Crompton T, Kasser T (2009)Meeting environmental challenges: the roleof human identity. Green Books Ltd, Surrey, UK

Dodds W (2008) Humanity’s footprint: momentum, impact, and ourglobal environment. Columbia University, New York

Donovan MS, Bransford JD, Pellegrino JW (eds) (1999) How peoplelearn: bridging research and practice. National Academies,Washington

Duggan-Haas D, Ross RM, Allmon WD, w/Cronin KE, Smrecak, TA,Perry S (2013) The science beneath the surface: a very short guide tothe Marcellus Shale. Paleontological Research Institution (SpecialPublication 43): Ithaca, New York

Eidelman S, Crandall CS (2012) Bias in favor of the status quo. SocPersonal Psychol Compass 6(3):270–281. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00427.x

Fenichel M, Schweingruber HA (2009) Surrounded by science: learningscience in informal environments. National Academies, Washington

Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (1stAmerican ed.). Pantheon Books, New York

Freire P (1993/1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.). Continuum,New York

Fu JHY, Morris MW, Lee SL, Chao M, Chiu CY, Hong YY (2007)Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: need for closure, cul-ture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. J Pers SocPsychol 92(2):191–207. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.191

Gee JP (2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. RevRes Educ 25(1):99–125

Gruenewald D (2003) The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy ofplace. Educ Res 32(4):3–12

Gruenewald DA, Smith GA (2008) Place-based education in the globalage: local diversity. Erlbaum, New York

Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reasonand the rationalization of society. Beacon, Boston

Henderson J (2014) Out of sight, out of mind: on global connection,environmental discourses and the emerging field of sustainabilityeducation. Cult Stud of Sci Ed (in press)

Holland D, Lachicotte W, Skinner D, Cain C (2001) Identity and agencyin cultural worlds. Harvard University, Cambridge

Howarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A (2011) Methane and thegreenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations.Clim Chang 106(4):679–690. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

Hursh D, Henderson J (2011) Contesting global neoliberalism and creat-ing alternative futures. Disc: Stud Cult Pol Ed 32(2):171–185. doi:10.1080/01596306.2011.562665

Johnson AG (2008) The forest and the trees: sociology as life, practice,and promise. Temple University, Philadelphia

Kahan DM, Braman D (2006) Cultural cognition and public policy. YaleLaw Pol Rev 24(1):149–172

Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture andidentity–protective cognition: explaining the white–male effect inrisk perception. J Empir Leg Stud 4(3):465–505. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x

Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D,Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy andnumeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang2(10):732–735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547

Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux,New York

Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: the endowmenteffect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5(1):193–206

Klemow KM (2012) Science and energy policy: leave the cherries alone.Front Ecol Environ 10(3):115

Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012)Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and success-ful debiasing. Psych Sci Pub Int 13:106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018

J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96 95

Author's personal copy

Lim M, Barton AC (2006) Science learning and a sense of place in aurban middle school. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1(1):107–142. doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9002-9

Martina CA, Hursh D,Markowitz D (2009) Contradictions in educationalpolicy: implementing integrated problem–based environmentalhealth curriculum in a high stakes environment. Environ Educ Res15(3):279–297

Martinez DM, Ebenhack BW (2008) Understanding the role of energyconsumption in human development through the use of saturationphenomena. Energ Policy 36(4):1430–1435. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.12.016

May C, Finch T (2009) Implementing, embedding, and integrating prac-tices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 43(3):535–554. doi:10.1177/0038038509103208

McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) Cool dudes: the denial of climate changeamong conservative white males in the United States. Glob EnvironChang 21(4):1163–1172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003

McGraw S (2011) The end of country. Random House, New YorkMcKenzie M (2012) Education for y’all: global neoliberalism and the

case for a politics of scale in sustainability education policy. Pol FutEd 10(2):165–177. doi:10.2304/pfie.2012.10.2.165

Murray Li T (2007) The will to improve: governmentality, development,and the practice of politics. Duke University, Durham

National Research Council (2007) Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects. National Academies, Washington

National Research Council (2009) Learning science in informal environ-ments: people, places, and pursuits. National Academies, Washington

Oakeshott M (1962) On being conservative. In: Oakeshott M (ed)Rationalism in politics and other essays.Methuen, London, pp 168–196

Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful ofscientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to globalwarming. Bloomsbury, London

Orr DW (1994) Earth inmind: on education, environment, and the humanprospect. Island, Washington

Pachirat T (2011) Every twelve seconds: industrialized slaughter and thepolitics of sight. Yale University, New Haven

Pink S (2011) Ethnography of the invisible: energy in the multisensoryhome. Ethnologia Europaea. J Euro Ethnol 41:117–128

Revkin A (2012) On shale gas, warming and whiplash. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/on-shale-gas-warming-and-whiplash/. Accessed 30 Oct 2012

Reynolds, BJ (2012) The hounds of hydrofracking will tear your com-munity to shreds. The flowback: the costly consequences ofhydrofracking (6th ed.) 1: 19

Sadler PM, Schneps MH, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics(2003)Aprivate universe:minds of our own.Annenberg,United States

SamuelsonW, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. JRisk Uncertain 1:7–59

Sen AK (1977) Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral foundations ofeconomic theory. Phil Pub Aff 6(4):317–344

Sherman DK, Cohen GL (2006) The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 38:183–242. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5

Smil V (2008) Global catastrophes and trends: the next fifty years. MIT,Cambridge

Smith GA (2002) Place-based education: learning to be where we are. PhiDelta Kappan 83:584–594

Smith B (2012) WXXI 1370 Connect ion. ht tp : / /s t ream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wxxi/local-wxxi-999692.mp3 Accessed 30 Oct 2012

Sobel D (2004) Place-based education: connecting classrooms and com-munities. The Orion Society, Great Barrington

Sosniak L (2001) The 9 % challenge: education in school and society.Teach Coll Rec 103:15

Sovacool BK, Brown MA (2010) Replacing myths with maxims:rethinking the relationship between energy and American society.In: Nader L (ed) The energy reader. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden,pp 246–263

Speth JG (2008) The bridge at the edge of the world: capitalism, theenvironment, and crossing from crisis to sustainability. YaleUniversity, New Haven

Tainter JA (1990) The collapse of complex societies. CambridgeUniversity, London

Tainter JA, Patzek TW (2012) Drilling down: the Gulf oil debacle and ourenergy dilemma. Copernicus, New York

Thomashow M (2002) Bringing the biosphere home. MIT, CambridgeTversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of

decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278United States Department of Energy Information Association (2012)

Annual energy outlook 2012 (DOE/EIA Publication No. 0383ER).U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington

United States Energy Information Administration (2012) Electricity gen-erating capacity. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/. U.S.Department of Energy, Washington

Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (2007/1944) Theory of games andeconomic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Wilber T (2012) Under the surface: fracking, fortunes, and the fate of theMarcellus Shale. Cornell University, Ithaca

96 J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:87–96

Author's personal copy