Plausibility, Acceptability, and Trustworthiness: The Resonance of Shale Gas Frames in the United Kingdom

We employ a mixed-method research design to assess the resonance of key frames used in the UK policy debate over shale gas development amongst two distinct public audiences. We elaborate a conceptual framework drawn from argumentative discourse analysis and social movement studies. The framework conceptualises resonance as the result of frame plausibility, acceptability and trustworthiness. We utilise semi-structured interviews to analyse how frames resonate with local “campaigning publics” in the case study region of the Fylde, Lancashire, UK. The plausibility of the frames and trustworthiness of key organisations amongst the general public are also assessed through a nationally representative UK survey. We find that, amongst the general public, the frames of the anti-shale development discourse coalition are viewed as more plausible than those of the pro-shale coalition. This finding offers a partial explanation for the failure of UK shale policy. Our local community interviews identify contrasting views on frame resonance amongst local “campaigning publics”. We illustrate these contrasting views on frame resonance by exploring how pro – and anti-shale development interviewees generally held different perceptions about the trustworthiness of key actors and institutions, the promise of economic benefits, and the framing contests over climate change and risk and regulation.