Abstract
AbstractControl of bovine tuberculosis in cattle (bTB) in England and Wales is characterised by conversational and policy impasses, particularly in relation to badger culling. We created four online discussion groups comprising of badger cull supporters, cull‐opponents, aligned antagonists (mixing supporters and opponents affiliated with farming or an environmental/conservation group) and non‐aligned antagonists (mixing supporters and opponents who were not affiliated with a particular group). We held five different discussions with each grouping over the course of a week. We aimed to identify frames held by the opposing groupings within the bTB control controversy, which could either contribute to conflict and impasse, or alternatively could provide a potential conversational bridge between those who differed. Our analysis identified elements of the framings of the bTB control problem, which, particularly in the mixed groupings, lead to deadlock. We also identified some aspects of the framings which allowed those who differed to communicate together more effectively. We argue that these more transformative frames can be used to bridge conflict.
Highlights
IntroductionConflict is an inescapable feature of many environmental problems (Buijis and Lawrence 2013; Gutiérrez et al 2016) due to different views of the ‘right’ course of action, the scope and nature of problems and even whether problems [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: The abbreviation for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) has been corrected in this version.] Sociology
We focus on the case of the bovine tuberculosis controversy in England and Wales, which has been dominated by the question of whether badgers should be culled in an attempt to control the spread of infection in cattle (Wilkinson 2007; Grant 2009; Cassidy 2012; Atkins and Robinson 2013)
Of the 550 people who agreed in principle to take part, 144 participated in our earlier work that used Q-methodology to group them into cull supporters and cull opponents (Price et al 2017). 81 of those involved in our previous study took part in our online discussions
Summary
Conflict is an inescapable feature of many environmental problems (Buijis and Lawrence 2013; Gutiérrez et al 2016) due to different views of the ‘right’ course of action, the scope and nature of problems and even whether problems [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: The abbreviation for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) has been corrected in this version.] Sociology 95) in an attempt to acknowledge the differences between actors in ways that are neither antagonistic nor adversarial These approaches have not been able to reduce the stagnation in decision-making that characterises these conflicts when opponents talk past one another, using contradictory argumentation and / or evidence (Gray 2004; Verweij et al 2006; Putnam 2010). Any solution will be temporary, at best’ (Madden and McQuinn 2014, p. 98)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
