Control 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 ...
Control 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.
