Contesting facts about wind farms in Australia and the legitimacy of adverse health effects

Shannon CLARK, Linda BOTTERILL

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The development of wind energy in Australia has been subject to ongoing public debate and has been characterised by concerns over the health impacts of wind turbines. Using discursive psychology, we examine ‘wind turbine syndrome’ as a contested illness and analyse how people build and undermine divergent arguments about windfarm health effects. This article explores two facets of the dispute. First, we consider how participants construct ‘facts’ about the health effects of wind farms. We examine rhetorical resources used to construct wind farms as harmful or benign. Second, we examine the local negotiation of the legitimacy of health complaints. In the research interviews examined, even though interviewees treat those who report experiencing symptoms from wind farms as having primary rights to narrate their own experience, this epistemic primacy does not extend to the ability to ‘correctly’ identify symptoms’ cause. As a result, the legitimacy of health complaints is undermined. Wind turbine syndrome is an example of a contested illness that is politically controversial. We show how stake, interest and legitimacy are particularly relevant for participants’ competing descriptions about the ‘facts’ of wind turbine health effects.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)337–355
Number of pages19
JournalHealth
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Illegitimacy
legitimacy
farm
Health
health
complaint
illness
wind energy
Aptitude
Dissent and Disputes
Farms
Negotiating
psychology
cause
ability
Interviews
Psychology
interview
resources
experience

Cite this

@article{a6dd91d99939445a8b3012dc966a2706,
title = "Contesting facts about wind farms in Australia and the legitimacy of adverse health effects",
abstract = "The development of wind energy in Australia has been subject to ongoing public debate and has been characterised by concerns over the health impacts of wind turbines. Using discursive psychology, we examine ‘wind turbine syndrome’ as a contested illness and analyse how people build and undermine divergent arguments about windfarm health effects. This article explores two facets of the dispute. First, we consider how participants construct ‘facts’ about the health effects of wind farms. We examine rhetorical resources used to construct wind farms as harmful or benign. Second, we examine the local negotiation of the legitimacy of health complaints. In the research interviews examined, even though interviewees treat those who report experiencing symptoms from wind farms as having primary rights to narrate their own experience, this epistemic primacy does not extend to the ability to ‘correctly’ identify symptoms’ cause. As a result, the legitimacy of health complaints is undermined. Wind turbine syndrome is an example of a contested illness that is politically controversial. We show how stake, interest and legitimacy are particularly relevant for participants’ competing descriptions about the ‘facts’ of wind turbine health effects.",
keywords = "discourse and conversation analysis, environment and health, experiencing illness, narratives, experiencing illness and narratives",
author = "Shannon CLARK and Linda BOTTERILL",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1363459317693407",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "337–355",
journal = "Health",
issn = "1363-4593",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

Contesting facts about wind farms in Australia and the legitimacy of adverse health effects. / CLARK, Shannon; BOTTERILL, Linda.

In: Health, Vol. 22, No. 4, 01.07.2018, p. 337–355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contesting facts about wind farms in Australia and the legitimacy of adverse health effects

AU - CLARK, Shannon

AU - BOTTERILL, Linda

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - The development of wind energy in Australia has been subject to ongoing public debate and has been characterised by concerns over the health impacts of wind turbines. Using discursive psychology, we examine ‘wind turbine syndrome’ as a contested illness and analyse how people build and undermine divergent arguments about windfarm health effects. This article explores two facets of the dispute. First, we consider how participants construct ‘facts’ about the health effects of wind farms. We examine rhetorical resources used to construct wind farms as harmful or benign. Second, we examine the local negotiation of the legitimacy of health complaints. In the research interviews examined, even though interviewees treat those who report experiencing symptoms from wind farms as having primary rights to narrate their own experience, this epistemic primacy does not extend to the ability to ‘correctly’ identify symptoms’ cause. As a result, the legitimacy of health complaints is undermined. Wind turbine syndrome is an example of a contested illness that is politically controversial. We show how stake, interest and legitimacy are particularly relevant for participants’ competing descriptions about the ‘facts’ of wind turbine health effects.

AB - The development of wind energy in Australia has been subject to ongoing public debate and has been characterised by concerns over the health impacts of wind turbines. Using discursive psychology, we examine ‘wind turbine syndrome’ as a contested illness and analyse how people build and undermine divergent arguments about windfarm health effects. This article explores two facets of the dispute. First, we consider how participants construct ‘facts’ about the health effects of wind farms. We examine rhetorical resources used to construct wind farms as harmful or benign. Second, we examine the local negotiation of the legitimacy of health complaints. In the research interviews examined, even though interviewees treat those who report experiencing symptoms from wind farms as having primary rights to narrate their own experience, this epistemic primacy does not extend to the ability to ‘correctly’ identify symptoms’ cause. As a result, the legitimacy of health complaints is undermined. Wind turbine syndrome is an example of a contested illness that is politically controversial. We show how stake, interest and legitimacy are particularly relevant for participants’ competing descriptions about the ‘facts’ of wind turbine health effects.

KW - discourse and conversation analysis

KW - environment and health

KW - experiencing illness

KW - narratives

KW - experiencing illness and narratives

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP140100311

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047895150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/contesting-facts-about-wind-farms-australia-legitimacy-adverse-health-effects

U2 - 10.1177/1363459317693407

DO - 10.1177/1363459317693407

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 337

EP - 355

JO - Health

JF - Health

SN - 1363-4593

IS - 4

ER -