@article{kinsella_2022, title={SPLITTING (OVER) THE ATOM Nuclear energy and democratic conflict}, ISBN={["978-1-032-13052-1", "978-1-138-39225-0"]}, DOI={10.4324/9780429402302-25}, abstractNote={Since its inception, nuclear energy has been a site of policy debate, political protest, and divergent technical appraisals. Advocates have often framed it as a source of virtually limitless energy, and numerous nations have undertaken or are considering civilian nuclear power programs. Many of those programs have struggled under the combined challenges of safety and weapons proliferation concerns, accumulating nuclear wastes, and questions of economic viability. Less visible but particularly relevant as matters of energy democracy have been the ecological and human health impacts of a global system of uranium mining and other industrial processes comprising the nuclear fuel cycle. As climate change increasingly drives global concerns, nuclear power advocates argue that it provides a uniquely valuable, low-carbon energy source. Meanwhile, critics continue to highlight not only its direct material risks but also its potential to draw attention and resources away from more sustainable forms of energy transition. This chapter surveys the conflicted history and current status of civilian nuclear energy, with particular attention to questions of democratic governance, the roles of international and national regulatory regimes, political advocacy and protest, and the role of this contested energy source at a time of global energy transitions.}, journal={ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENERGY DEMOCRACY}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2022}, pages={224–238} }
 @article{kinsella_2022, title={The Hanford plaintiffs: voices from the fight for atomic justice}, ISSN={["1469-6711"]}, DOI={10.1080/13549839.2022.2034771}, abstractNote={"The Hanford plaintiffs: voices from the fight for atomic justice." Local Environment, 27(3), pp. 395–396}, journal={LOCAL ENVIRONMENT}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }
 @article{kinsella_2020, title={Extracting Uranium's futures: Nuclear wastes, toxic temporalities, and uncertain decisions}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2214-7918"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.exis.2020.01.003}, abstractNote={Civilian and military uses of nuclear energy have produced a legacy of high-level radioactive wastes posing threats of millennial duration, and their production continues despite the absence of viable disposal solutions. These materials extend the impact of decisions made today into a far distant future, raising difficult questions regarding intergenerational and intragenerational social justice, ethical responsibility, and collective decision-making. This essay critically reviews those challenges using resources from the fields of communication and rhetoric, sociologies and philosophies of temporality and risk, and science and technology studies. The essay argues that modern notions of prediction, control, and decision-making are inadequate for addressing such highly complex phenomena and long temporal durations. Nuclear waste disposal is then examined as an activity that seeks not only to contain material hazards, but also to symbolically purify the system of nuclear production and consumption. The proposed U.S. nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain provides an example in which predictive models, which warrant both epistemic and political authority, are nevertheless insufficient bases for collective decision-making. The essay then considers the situation in the United States, where a new political economy of nuclear waste appears to be emerging, and offers summary conclusions regarding nuclear power and social justice.}, number={2}, journal={EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND SOCIETY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2020}, month={Apr}, pages={524–534} }
 @article{barbour_buzzanell_kinsella_stephens_2018, title={Communicating/organizing for reliability, resilience, and safety: special issue introduction}, volume={23}, ISSN={["1758-6046"]}, DOI={10.1108/ccij-01-2018-0019}, abstractNote={Purpose NA Design/methodology/approach NA Findings NA Research limitations/implications NA Practical implications NA Originality/value NA}, number={2}, journal={CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS}, author={Barbour, Joshua B. and Buzzanell, Patrice M. and Kinsella, William J. and Stephens, Keri K.}, year={2018}, pages={154–161} }
 @article{kinsella_andreas_endres_2015, title={Communicating Nuclear Power: A Programmatic Review}, volume={39}, ISSN={2380-8985 2380-8977}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679178}, DOI={10.1080/23808985.2015.11679178}, abstractNote={Civil and commercial nuclear power production is a material and discursive phenomenon posing theoretical and practical questions warranting further attention by communication scholars. We provide a brief discursive history of nuclear power, followed by a review of scholarship in communication and related disciplines. We then examine five areas for further research: (a) the fragmentation of technocratic and public discourses; (b) regulation and governance; (c) the politics of nuclear waste; (d) critical social movements; and (e) intersections of communication, rhetoric, and nuclear risk. We provide a rationale and foundation for further work in these and other areas related to nuclear power.}, number={1}, journal={Annals of the International Communication Association}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kinsella, William J. and Andreas, Dorothy Collins and Endres, Danielle}, year={2015}, month={Jan}, pages={277–309} }
 @article{kinsella_2015, title={Rearticulating Nuclear Power: Energy Activism and Contested Common Sense}, volume={9}, ISSN={["1752-4040"]}, DOI={10.1080/17524032.2014.978348}, abstractNote={This essay utilizes the perspective of articulation theory to examine how environmental advocates, public interest organizations, and citizen-consumers have challenged the nuclear industry's expansion efforts, linking strategies at local and global levels. The industry has articulated a material and discursive formation including reactor construction projects, financial and political arrangements, and an overarching narrative of nuclear necessity and inevitability. Opponents have responded by linking organizations, individuals, histories, geographies, and expertise, re-articulating the place of nuclear power in the field of energy choices. This essay examines those opposing articulations in the context of efforts to construct new nuclear power plants in the southeastern USA. There, opponents have challenged state-level regulatory approval of a corporate merger that would facilitate new nuclear construction and financing arrangements that would shift economic risks from the corporation to consumers. These local engagements have broader consequences: in challenging one corporation's nuclear ambitions, opponents also challenge the global industry narrative of nuclear necessity and inevitability.}, number={3}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION-A JOURNAL OF NATURE AND CULTURE}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2015}, month={Jul}, pages={346–366} }
 @article{kinsella_kelly_kittle autry_2013, title={Risk, Regulation, and Rhetorical Boundaries: Claims and Challenges Surrounding a Purported Nuclear Renaissance}, volume={80}, ISSN={0363-7751 1479-5787}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.788253}, DOI={10.1080/03637751.2013.788253}, abstractNote={This study examines the efforts of individuals and advocacy groups seeking to influence a state utilities commission's decisions regarding a large corporate merger and a nuclear power construction project. Such local engagements have wider significance as the nuclear industry attempts to expand its role in the global energy economy. Utilizing participatory field work and analysis of public documents, we extend the concept of rhetorical boundary work by examining two challenges faced by opponents of the merger and the nuclear project. First, the utilities commission's regulatory mandate is limited to economic risks rather than environmental, health, and safety risks. Second, expert authority is consistently privileged over local, vernacular arguments. We explore the rhetorical negotiation of these boundaries and the effects produced.}, number={3}, journal={Communication Monographs}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kinsella, William J. and Kelly, Ashley R. and Kittle Autry, Meagan}, year={2013}, month={Sep}, pages={278–301} }
 @article{kinsella_2012, title={Environments, Risks, and the Limits of Representation: Examples from Nuclear Energy and Some Implications of Fukushima}, volume={6}, ISSN={["1752-4040"]}, DOI={10.1080/17524032.2012.672928}, abstractNote={This essay examines examples from the field of nuclear energy, including the 2011 disaster at Fukushima-Daiichi, through perspectives drawn from phenomenology, social systems theory, and constitutive communication theory. The essay argues that although prevailing approaches to nuclear risk analysis and risk communication seek to represent a world of preexisting phenomena, they also fundamentally constitute the world on which decision-makers, organizations, and communities act. Representations of nuclear risk are inevitably and problematically limited, with important implications for policy, practice, and communicative action.}, number={2}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION-A JOURNAL OF NATURE AND CULTURE}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2012}, pages={251–259} }
 @article{kinsella_2012, title={FORUM Communicative Action in Response to a Nuclear Crisis: Representations of Fukushima across Communication Contexts}, volume={6}, ISSN={1752-4032 1752-4040}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.675346}, DOI={10.1080/17524032.2012.675346}, abstractNote={The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant poses important questions for environmental communication scholarship and practice. This forum examines questions that were emerging one month into the Fukushima crisis, when a panel examined its implications as part of North Carolina State University's second annual research symposium on Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media (details available at http://crdm.chass.ncsu.edu/symposium2011/). Expanding those initial analyses, we identify implications across the contexts of environmental communication, expert-public engagement, public discourses of nuclear energy, uses of new media, risk and crisis communication, and organizational and institutional communication. The first essay (Kinsella) addresses some implications of Fukushima from the perspectives of constitutive communication theory, risk analysis, and risk communication. The second essay (Ionescu) examines an effort to foster dialog between technical experts and a concerned public audience, made by a nuclear energy institute in Germany. The third essay (Binder) explores uses of Twitter by people in the USA as a tool for following the rapidly evolving events at Fukushima. The final essay (Kittle Autry and Kelly) analyzes public discourse surrounding a proposed merger of two US energy companies with substantial nuclear operations, before and after the onset of the Fukushima disaster.}, number={2}, journal={Environmental Communication}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2012}, month={May}, pages={250–250} }
 @article{kinsella_2011, title={Special issue: Learning from the 2008-09 global financial crisis}, volume={21}, number={3}, journal={Electronic Journal of Communication}, author={Kinsella, W.}, year={2011} }
 @article{kinsella_2010, title={Risk communication, phenomenology, and the limits of representation}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1757-1901"]}, DOI={10.1386/cjcs.2.2.267_7}, abstractNote={Despite movements towards more dialogic and rhetorical models, the field of risk communication remains rooted in foundational commitments regarding ontology, epistemology, authority and practice. In prevailing views of risk communication, risk is the primary phenomenon and communication
 is a secondary and subordinate process. Applying Heidegger's phenomenological critique of the modern world picture, phenonenologically-grounded communication theory, and Luhmann's model of autopoietic social systems, this essay proposes an alternative view in which communication constitutes,
 rather than represents, risks and explores the implications of such a view.}, number={2}, journal={CATALAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION & CULTURAL STUDIES}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2010}, month={Nov}, pages={267–276} }
 @misc{kinsella_2008, title={Cultures of contamination: Legacies of pollution in Russia and the U.S}, volume={1}, ISSN={1940-9419 1940-9427}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2008.10756712}, DOI={10.1080/19409419.2008.10756712}, number={2}, journal={Russian Journal of Communication}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2008}, month={Mar}, pages={230–234} }
 @article{kinsella_2008, title={Forum: Narratives, rhetorical genres, and environmental conflict: Responses to Schwarze's "Environmental melodrama"}, volume={2}, number={1}, journal={Environmental Communication}, author={Kinsella, W.}, year={2008}, pages={78–109} }
 @article{kinsella_2008, title={Identity, community, and risk: Some constitutive consequences of environmental melodrama}, volume={2}, number={1}, journal={Environmental Communication}, author={Kinsella, W.}, year={2008}, pages={90–93} }
 @article{kinsella_bsumek_walker_kinsella_check_rai peterson_schwarze_2008, title={Narratives, Rhetorical Genres, and Environmental Conflict: Responses to Schwarze's “Environmental Melodrama”}, volume={2}, ISSN={1752-4032 1752-4040}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524030801980242}, DOI={10.1080/17524030801980242}, abstractNote={The appearance of Steven Schwarze's essay, “Environmental Melodrama” (Schwarze, 2006) as the lead article in a recent issue of The Quarterly Journal of Speech marks an important moment of recognition for environmental communication scholarship. Schwarze's essay demonstrates how studies of environmental rhetoric can contribute to rhetorical theory more generally, while addressing practical questions regarding the rhetorical aspects of environmental conflict. The contributors to this forum respond to Schwarze's arguments, drawing in part upon their own case studies of rhetorical action and narrative in environmental conflict.}, number={1}, journal={Environmental Communication}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Kinsella, William J. and Bsumek, Peter K. and Walker, Gregg B. and Kinsella, William J. and Check, Terence and Rai Peterson, Tarla and Schwarze, Steve}, year={2008}, month={Mar}, pages={78–109} }
 @inbook{kinsella_mullen_2007, title={Becoming Hanford downwinders: Producing community and challenging discursive containment}, ISBN={0739119044}, booktitle={Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons complex}, publisher={Lanham, MD: Lexington Books}, author={Kinsella, W. J. and Mullen, J.}, editor={Taylor, B. C. and Kinsella, W. J. and Depoe, S. P. and Metzler, M. S.Editors}, year={2007}, pages={73–107} }
 @article{kinsella_2007, title={Heidegger and Being at the Hanford Reservation: Standing Reserve, Enframing, and Environmental Communication Theory}, volume={1}, ISSN={["1752-4040"]}, DOI={10.1080/17524030701642728}, abstractNote={This essay examines the potential of Heidegger's phenomenology as a foundation for environmental communication theory, emphasizing his critiques of modern science, technology, humanism, and metaphysics. A phenomenological approach to environmental communication provides resources for recognizing metaphysical assumptions that endanger both humans and nature. The Hanford nuclear reservation serves as an illustrative text, exemplifying Heidegger's reading of nuclear energy as a culmination of both Western metaphysics and the instrumental stance that he calls “enframing.” In Heidegger's view, the ordering and control accomplished through enframing obscures the mutually constitutive relationship between humans and nature, and in doing so, diminishes the possibilities for authentic human existence. The chapter examines how both representational and constitutive models of communication contribute to those conditions, and adopts a set of concepts from Heidegger's phenomenology as a foundation for an alternative, “bounded constitutive” model.}, number={2}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION-A JOURNAL OF NATURE AND CULTURE}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2007}, pages={194–217} }
 @inbook{taylor_kinsella_2007, title={Introduction: Linking nuclear legacies and communication studies}, ISBN={0739119044}, booktitle={Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons complex}, publisher={Lanham, MD: Lexington Books}, author={Taylor, B. C. and Kinsella, W. J.}, editor={Taylor, B. C. and Kinsella, W. J. and Depoe, S. P. and Metzler, M. S.Editors}, year={2007}, pages={1–37} }
 @book{nuclear legacies: communication, controversy, and the u.s. nuclear weapons complex_2007, ISBN={0739119044}, publisher={Lanham, MD: Lexington Books}, year={2007} }
 @book{kinsella_2005, title={Finding our way(s) in environmental communication proceedings  of the Seventh Biennial Conference on Communication and the Environment2005}, publisher={Corvallis, OR: Department of Speech Communication, Oregon State University}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2005} }
 @book{finding our way(s) in environmental communication: proceedings of the seventh biennial conference on communication and environment_2005, publisher={Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University}, year={2005} }
 @article{taylor_kinsella_depoe_metzler_2005, title={Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex}, volume={29}, ISSN={2380-8985 2380-8977}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679053}, DOI={10.1080/23808985.2005.11679053}, abstractNote={This chapter engages communication surrounding the history and future of U.S. nuclear weapons production. The authors begin by arguing that these phenomena are normalized, and thus neglected, among citizens and communication scholars, and respond by reviewing the history of the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex and by characterizing communication among its associated organizations and communities. They then examine the material and discursive legacies of this system, emphasizing recent changes that have opened new possibilities for communication between institutions and their stakeholders. The authors next develop three theoretical frames for analyzing communication in this dense and rapidly evolving scene: (a) democracy, participation, and the nuclear public sphere; (b) organizational crisis, change, and stakeholder communication; and (c) nuclear history, memory, and heritage. They conclude by identifying and addressing various challenges associated with adopting this research program. Throughout, the authors foreground and critique the role of communication in responding to the past and creating the future of nuclear weapons production.}, number={1}, journal={Annals of the International Communication Association}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Taylor, Bryan C. and Kinsella, William J. and Depoe, Stephen P. and Metzler, Maribeth S.}, year={2005}, month={Jan}, pages={363–409} }
 @article{taylor_kinsella_depoe_metzler_2005, title={Nuclear legacies: Communication, controversy, and the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex}, volume={29}, DOI={10.1207/s15567419cy2901_12}, journal={Communication Yearbook}, author={Taylor, B. C. and Kinsella, W. J. and Depoe, S. P. and Metzler, M. S.}, year={2005}, pages={363–409} }
 @article{kinsella_2005, title={One hundred years of nuclear discourse: Four master themes and their implications for environmental communication}, volume={2}, DOI={10.1207/s15567362ecy0201_3}, journal={Environmental Communication Yearbook}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={2005}, pages={49–72} }
 @article{kinsella_2005, title={Rhetoric, Action, and Agency in Institutionalized Science and Technology}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1542-7625"]}, DOI={10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_8}, abstractNote={This essay argues that to an unprecedented degree the practices of contemporary science and technology are embedded within complex institutional systems. This embeddedness problematizes received views of rhetorical action and agency, which must be reformulated to locate these principles within larger systems of power/ knowledge. Three sets of resources are identified for this reformulation: theories of organizational rhetoric, Foucauldian studies of knowledge-intensive organizations, and Foucauldian approaches to the philosophy of science.}, number={3}, journal={TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY}, author={Kinsella, William J.}, year={2005}, pages={303–310} }
 @inbook{kinsella_2004, title={Fusion power and rhetorical power: A communication perspective on nuclear energy research}, ISBN={1556053665}, booktitle={Power in focus: Perspectives from multiple disciplines}, publisher={Lima, OH: Wyndham Hall Press}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={2004}, pages={3–38} }
 @article{kinsella_2004, title={Nuclear discourse and nuclear institutions: A theoretical framework and two empirical examples}, volume={5}, journal={Qualitative Research Reports in Communication}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={2004}, pages={8–14} }
 @inbook{kinsella_2004, title={Public expertise: A foundation for citizen participation in energy and environmental decisions}, ISBN={0791460231}, booktitle={Communication and public participation in environmental decision making}, publisher={Albany, NY: SUNY Press}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, editor={S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath and Elsenbeer, M. A.Editors}, year={2004}, pages={83–95} }
 @article{kinsella_2002, title={Problematizing the distinction between expert and lay knowledge}, volume={10}, DOI={10.1080/15456870209367428}, abstractNote={Public policy issues with technical dimensions present a special problem for democracy. As public issues they should receive the attention of all affected stakeholders, but as technical issues they are typically addressed through the narrow perspective of expertise. This essay argues that a reified distinction between “expert” and “lay” knowledge contributes to this problem, with implications both for democracy and for the quality of technical decisions. Integrating perspectives from communication theory with work in sociology and policy studies, the essay reexamines the expert/lay distinction and suggests a more dialogical, rather than dichotomous, model for the relationship between expert and lay knowledge. Two brief empirical examples, drawn from settings where lay citizens and technical specialists have collaborated closely, illustrate and ground the theoretical argument.}, number={2}, journal={New Jersey Journal of Communication}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={2002}, pages={191–207} }
 @article{kinsella_2001, title={Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford nuclear reservation}, volume={10}, DOI={10.1080/09505430125359}, number={2}, journal={Science as Culture}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={2001}, pages={163–194} }
 @article{kinsella_1999, title={Discourse, power, and knowledge in the management of "big science": The production of consensus in a nuclear fusion research laboratory}, volume={13}, DOI={10.1177/0893318999132001}, abstractNote={ This article extends a Foucauldian view of power/knowledge to the archetypical knowledge-intensive organization, the scientific research laboratory. Although Foucault hesitated to extend his analytics of power to the so-called hard sciences, rhetorical and social studies of science provide a foundation for such an extension. The article describes the discursive production of power/knowledge at a “big science” laboratory conducting nuclear fusion research and illuminates a critical incident in which the fusion research “discipline” imposes normative “discipline” on individual scientists and research teams. Here scientific knowledge is not solely a product of data and theory but emerges from a discursive formation in which management practices and institutional context frame the relationship between knowledge and power. }, number={2}, journal={Management Communication Quarterly}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={1999}, pages={171–208} }
 @article{kinsella_1996, title={A fusion of interests: Big science, government, and rhetorical practice in nuclear fusion research}, volume={26}, DOI={10.1080/02773949609391079}, abstractNote={(1996). A “fusion” of interests: Big science, government, and rhetorical practice in nuclear fusion research. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 26, The Rhetoric of Science, pp. 65-81.}, number={4}, journal={Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={1996}, pages={65–81} }
 @article{kinsella_1993, title={Communication and information technologies: A dialectical model of technology and human agency}, volume={1}, DOI={10.1080/15456879309367247}, abstractNote={This essay appraises the relationship between technology and human agency with specific attention to communication and information technologies. Naive models of technological determinism, as well as models that disregard the deterministic qualities of technology, are rejected. In place of these a general, dialectical model of technology is presented, in which technologies and attitudes toward technologies are viewed as socially constructed. The model is then applied in an analysis of some of the classic and contemporary literatures on communication and information technologies.}, number={1}, journal={New Jersey Journal of Communication}, author={Kinsella, W. J.}, year={1993}, pages={2–18} }