arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Political Interpretation of Evidence in Contested Agency Hearings: The Politicization of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York

Jennifer Dodge et al.

Administration and Society2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997251409159article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Public hearings enable agencies to inform impact analyses of proposed projects. Yet, how participants present evidence during hearings is underexplored. Our study builds knowledge through an argumentative analysis of a hearing about fracking in New York. Results show that participants used three mechanisms – boundary work, practical reasoning, and professional reasoning – to contest the environmental agency’s evidentiary and normative claims and propose alternatives. These mechanisms suggest that politicization of hearings occurs when testifiers make visible and problematize an agency’s limiting assumptions on administrative decisions. Further, achieving accountability through hearings requires effort articulating that a matter deserves heightened scrutiny.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997251409159

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jennifer2026,
  title        = {{Political Interpretation of Evidence in Contested Agency Hearings: The Politicization of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York}},
  author       = {Jennifer Dodge et al.},
  journal      = {Administration and Society},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997251409159},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Political Interpretation of Evidence in Contested Agency Hearings: The Politicization of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.