The insufficient knowledge behind policy decisions regarding emerging energy technologies (EETs) risks turning potential development into unprepared errors in both short and long run. Limited by human cognition, many impacts of EETs are often unknown at the beginning and would only be known via trial and e­rror. Locally stocked knowledge could only be collected and cumulated by diverse knowledgeable groups over time, such as scientists, industry, and knowledgeable laypersons from environmental groups. Facing such knowledge asymmetry in nature, risk communication plays a crucial role in improving human understanding and facilitating better decision making. Furthermore, the asymmetry exists not only between knowledge creators and the general audience at the other side of public discourse, but also among various knowledge creators. While current literature gives more focus to the outcome of risk communication from the perspective of decision makers, less known is to what extent a consensus can be reached among various knowledgeable groups beforehand. The aim of this study is to investigate the uneven distribution of current knowledge and to elicit underlying values, norms, and risk cultures that explain the roles and characteristics of knowledge creators. This paper would identify the patterns of knowledge conglomeration and help facilitate the provision of consistent and integrated knowledge stock to the decision makers.

In this paper, we study the emerging unconventional gas development to examine the knowledge asymmetry and the multi-level dissension among knowledgeable groups. We firstly identify scientists, industry, and environmental groups as three key knowledgeable groups who vary in knowledge contribution and communication strategies ranging from persuasion to non-persuasion. We then apply a multi-round, interactive survey by following policy Delphi approach to assess the consensus among knowledge creators. The conventional policy Delphi method is a powerful technique describing consensus and evaluating dissension among interviewers. We adjust the policy Delphi method by integrating Fischhoff’s framework of acceptable risk and Heeger’s signal detection theory, constructing a dynamic model of multilateral learning and consensus building. As such, we are able to synthesize various perspectives from diverse knowledge creators into a dynamic knowledge stock, accessible to decision makers.

Besides a report based on 30 knowledgeable experts from three groups in the U.S., we propose a follow-up comparative research design that sample experts from other shale-gas-abundant regions, such as China, Philippine, Poland, and UK.