The Newbury Bypass: A Case Study of Contested Knowledge and Social Conflict

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

The Newbury Bypass: A Case Study of Contested Knowledge and Social Conflict

2. Keywords

Conservation, transport policy, sustainable development, new social movements, direct action, public protest.

3. Introduction

In 1995 the UK Government finally gave the go-ahead for work to begin on the construction of a bypass on the A34 around the town of Newbury. By that time, the controversial bypass had already been the subject of a public consultation exercise (organised by the Department of Transport in 1982), two public inquiries (in 1988 and 1992) and a major review (undertaken by the Highways Agency in 1994). Opposition to the bypass was widespread, and in 1995 the bypass became the site of Britain’s biggest ever anti-road protest. The bypass finally opened in November 1998, but had to be closed in 1999 for repairs to the road surface.

Throughout the conflict (which remains unresolved), a large number of interested parties (‘claims-makers’) have exchanged claim and counter-claim in relation to a wide range of issues. The claims-makers have repeatedly been unable to reach agreement over the so-called ‘facts’ surrounding the bypass, and are also frequently at odds with each other over questions concerning social and environmental values. Any attempt to understand the conflict, therefore, cannot simply involve trying to decide which side is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or who has got their ‘facts’ ‘right’. Rather, it must entail an analysis of the ways in which the various claims-makers have constructed their cases, and an exploration of the extent to which, and the processes by which, claims may reflect the values, interests, etc of the claims-makers.

4. Aim

The aim of this TLR is to encourage students to think critically about the knowledge claims advanced by various claims-makers involved in the conflict surrounding the Newbury Bypass.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR, students should:

Have identified the key issues associated with the conflict.
Have identified the key claims-makers involved in the conflict; found out about the values, interests, etc of those claims-makers; and explored the possible influence of the claims-makers’ values, interests, etc on the claims they advance.
Have analysed the construction of the cases for and against the bypass.
Be able to make a more critically-informed contribution to debates about the Newbury Bypass and similar conflicts.

6. Pre-requisites

Students should be familiar with the idea that the production of knowledge can be viewed as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’, and have had at least some experience of thinking critically about such processes. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:

Students should be broadly familiar with the historical context within which the conflict occurred. In particular, they should have at least an elementary knowledge of (i) the kinds of social and environmental impact generally associated with different modes of transport, (ii) UK – and, ideally, European – policy on transport and the environment, and (iii) the history of environmental activism – including anti-roads protests – in the UK.

It would also be helpful if students had previously explored the contested nature of sustainable development from a ‘critical’ perspective. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:

7. How to use TLR

The TLR has been designed to be used with a class of up to about 30 students broadly as follows.

Stage 1

i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used.

ii) Give each student a copy of the Briefing Sheet (see Appendix).

iii) Instruct the students to read the Briefing Sheet and then – working individually, in pairs or small groups – to (a) ‘map’ the key issues and claims-makers and (b) analyse the cases for and against the bypass – according to the instructions given on the Briefing Sheet.

Steps (i) and (ii) and the first part of step (iii) could be completed in about 20 minutes’ of class time. Step (iii) should be completed during independent study. It is impossible to quantify how much time this independent study would require, but it is likely that students would need at least one week in order to identify, obtain and work on a sufficiently wide range of print-based and on-line information sources.

Stage 2

iv) Divide the class into groups of 5-8 students. (If students worked in pairs or small groups during Step (iii) of Stage 1, these larger groups should be formed by joining two or more of those pairs/small groups.)

v) Instruct students within each group to compare notes on the work done during Step (iii). They should seek to identify, and resolve or account for, any differences in their analyses; and summarise what they have learnt about the making of knowledge claims by parties involved in the bypass conflict.

vi) Invite representatives (one or more) of each group to report back briefly to the whole class on the key points to have emerged from their discussions.

vii) Conclude the session with an all-class discussion of what has been learnt. This discussion might be extended to explore:

possible explanations for any differences in the views expressed by different individuals and/or organisations. For example, to what extent do they reflect the purposes, interests, values etc of those individuals/organisations? And, insofar as this is the case, how can it be explained? For example, to what extent do people deliberately misrepresent what they ‘know’ to be the ‘truth’ (eg by lying or being ‘economical with the truth’) in pursuit of their own personal or organisational interests? Or can (at least some of the) differences in what people ‘know’ be interpreted as genuinely held differences of belief? And, insofar as this is the case, how do such differences arise?
possible explanations for any differences in the ways in which different claims-makers constructed their cases. For example, to what extent might claims-makers have been influenced by the intended audience(s) of specific texts?
implications of the above for how students perceive their own views on the bypass. For example, to what extent had the students previously accepted, more or less uncritically, the knowledge claims advanced by some claims-makers (eg academics, business organisations, governmental bodies, grass roots activists, media organisations, non-governmental organisations, political parties, professional bodies) in preference to those advanced by others (with differing views)? To what extent do the students see their own ‘knowledge’ as being as uncertain, provisional, subjective, and value-laden – as opposed to certain, objective and value-free? And, more generally, do they think it is possible for knowledge about contested issues such as the bypass to be absolutely certain, objective and value-free?

Steps (iv) to (vii) would probably require about 90 minutes’ worth of class time, although it is possible that the exercise could be completed in around 60 minutes with a small group of students, or if the discussion were curtailed.

8. Instructions to students

As directed by tutor.

9. Stimulus Material

See attached Briefing Sheet (see Appendix).

10. Degree stage

It is anticipated that this TLR would be most appropriate for use with students at level 3. However, it could be used at level 2 provided that the students satisfied the pre-requisites (see Section 6), and that the activity was presented in an appropriate manner.

11. Resource requirements

The TLR has no special resource requirements.

12. Preparation

It would probably worth trying to ensure that students had access to the reports produced by the Highways Agency Study Team and Friends of the Earth (both published in 1995 – see Section 15 for details) prior to using this TLR.

13. Links with other TLRs

The aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic clusters':

Contested science
Environmental economics, law and decision making
Case studies

14. Follow-up activities

Analysing Media Coverage

In the exercise described above, students are required to explore the ways in which the cases for and against the bypass were constructed by some of the principal claims-makers. This exercise could be extended by inviting students to analyse the role played by the mass media (1). In particular, students could be asked to analyse the ways in which the conflict was covered by a range of different newspapers (2). The aim here would be for students to develop a critical approach to news reporting. More specifically, they should come to see that newspapers do not simply provide neutral accounts of the ‘facts’; but, rather, act as claims-makers in their own right and, thereby, may exert a significant influence on the outcome of events. The claims-making role of newspapers is revealed most clearly in the ways in which they ‘frame’ stories (cf, for example, the difference between the conflict being framed as a story about the environment, as opposed to the economy or law and order; or between protestors being portrayed as brave defenders of threatened nature, as opposed to irresponsible law-breakers who pose a threat to decent society). Amongst other things, therefore, students should pay attention to:

the relative importance accorded, at different times, to different aspects of the conflict – as reflected, for example, in the amount of space devoted to a particular issue, the location of stories about that issue (cf the difference between the front and inside pages, or the top versus the bottom of a page), the size of headlines, the number and size of photographs.
the amount of space devoted to different claims-makers (eg activists, politicians, scientists, transport professionals); as well as the extent to which they are portrayed as authoritative sources, and their knowledge claims (positive and normative) portrayed as credible.
the use of language, including literary devices (eg metaphor, emotionally-charged language) in headlines, sub-headings and picture captions, as well as in the body of the text itself.
the ‘messages’ conveyed by any photographs, cartoons and other graphical images.

15. Recommended reading

Print-based resources

Friends of the Earth (1995) End of the Road: Managing Newbury’s Traffic to Reduce Congestion and Pollution without a Western Bypass. Friends of the Earth, London.(3) [Presents findings of a study which sought “to find out what the traffic and transport problems in Newbury are, and to explore options for solving them.”]

Highways Agency Study Team (1995) Newbury Bypass Study Report. Highways Agency, Birmingham.(4) [Presents the findings of an ‘independent’ study team set up within the Highways Agency, which sought “to identify and discuss the changes that have taken place since the Inspector’s report, which may be considered to be relevant to the issue of the bypass” and “to look again at the major decisions made previously about the bypass and to assess whether or not, in the light of the changes, they remain sound.”

Mackay, George (1996) Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance since the Sixties. Verso, London. [See especially Chapter 5 – Direct Action of the New Protest: Eco-Rads on the Road, pp. 127-158, which “examine[s] the extraordinary surge of direct action in the 1990s – looking in particular at anti-road protests – and trace[s] the origins and developments of apparently new campaigns in relation to … a significant tradition of largely youth-oriented cultures of resistance from the 1960s and early 1970s on.”]

Rowell, Andrew (1996) Green Backlash. Global Subversion of the Environment Movement. Routledge, London. [See especially Chapter 12 – The Road to Nowhere, pp. 320-55, which discusses anti-road protests, including the Newbury Bypass protest, within the context of an analysis of the ‘backlash’ against environmentalism orchestrated “by the triple engines of the political Right, corporations and the state.”]

Suliman, Mohamed (ed) (1999) Ecology, Politics and Violent Conflict. Zed Books, London. [See especially chapters 6-11, which present six case studies of environment-related social conflicts.]

Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn (1997) Green Backlash. The History and Politics of Environmental Opposition in the US. Lynne Rienner Publishers, London. [Presents an historically-based analysis of “opposition to the environmental movement and environmental protection generally” in the United States by groups “such as the wise use and property rights movements”.]

Wall, Derek (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement. Routledge, London. [See especially Chapter 4 – Twyford, Other tribes and Other Trials, pp. 65-93, which discusses anti-road protests, including the Newbury Bypass protest, within the context of an analysis of the activities of radical campaigning group, Earth First!.]

Wykes, Maggie (2000) ‘The burrowers: news about bodies, tunnels and green guerrillas’. In Stuart Allen et al (eds) Environmental Risks and the Media. Routledge, London. [Examines the news values and ‘frames’ through which the tunnelling activities of anti-roads (and anti-airport runways) protesters of the mid-1990s were reported in the mass media.]

Internet resources

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. This site provides extensive information about UK Government policy on the environment, transport and regional development. Available at: http://www.detr.gov.uk/

Friends of the Earth Newbury Bypass Homepage. This site consists of a set of pages providing details of the FoE campaign against the bypass. Amongst other things, the site contains an extensive archive of FoE press releases. Available at: http://www.foe.org.uk/action/newbury/index.html

Highways Agency. This site provides information about the operations of the UK Government’s Highways Agency, and includes an extensive list of links to other transport-related sites, including sites owned by a wide range of governmental, professional and non-governmental organisations. Available at: http://www.highways.gov.uk/

New Social Movements, the Environment and Local Resistance. This site provides brief details of a module on new social movements on the MA in Environment, Culture and Society at Lancaster University’s Centre for the Study of Environmental Change. An illustrative bibliography is included. Available at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/csec/study/ma_nsm.html

The Newbury Bypass Factfile. This site consists of a single, 26-page document, providing details of hundreds of information sources (many with hypertext links) concerning the Newbury Bypass. After a brief introduction to the site and the protest, there are two main sections. The first provides details of information sources organised thematically as a series of ‘issues’. The second provides details of a vast collection of press cutting and press releases organised chronologically. Available at: http://www.geocities.com/newburybypass/index.html

Appendix

The Newbury Bypass:
A Case Study of Contested Knowledge and Social Conflict

Briefing Sheet

Introduction

Throughout the conflict (which remains unresolved), a large number of interested parties (‘claims-makers’) have exchanged claim and counter-claim in relation to a wide range of issues. These claims-makers have repeatedly been unable to reach agreement over the so-called ‘facts’ surrounding the bypass, and are also frequently at odds with each other over questions concerning social and environmental values. Any attempt to understand the conflict, therefore, cannot simply involve trying to decide which side is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or who has got their ‘facts’ ‘right’. Rather, it must entail an analysis of the ways in which the various claims-makers have constructed their cases, and an exploration of the extent to which, and the processes by which, claims may reflect the values, interests, etc of the claims-makers.

Information Sources

The following are recommended as points of departure for the research you will need to undertake during this exercise (see instructions below). All contain a wealth of information about the bypass, whilst the on-line ‘factfile’ in particular will also help you locate further information sources.

Friends of the Earth (1995) End of the Road: Managing Newbury’s Traffic to Reduce Congestion and Pollution without a Western Bypass. Friends of the Earth, London.

Friends of the Earth Newbury Bypass Homepage. This site consists of a set of pages providing details of the FoE campaign against the bypass. Amongst other things, the site contains an extensive archive of FoE press releases. Available at: http://www.foe.org.uk/action/newbury/index.html

Highways Agency Study Team (1995) Newbury Bypass Study Report. Highways Agency, Birmingham.

The Newbury Bypass Factfile. Available on-line at: http://www.geocities.com/newburybypass/index.html

In addition, it is recommended that you undertake general searches of resources held in the university and other libraries, and on-line resources accessible via the internet. Information concerning specific organisations may be available on their websites, but you may also find it helpful to obtain print-based literature (eg booklets, leaflets, reports) – which can sometimes be obtained from organisations at little or no cost.

Instructions

‘Mapping’ the Key Issues and the Claims-Makers

1. Identify and briefly describe the key issues (social and environmental) contested by the various claims-makers involved in the conflict.

2. Identify the key claims-makers (eg academics, business organisations, governmental bodies, grass roots activists, media organisations, non-governmental organisations, political parties, professional bodies) involved in the conflict and, for each one, make brief notes on the nature of the claims-maker, the claims-maker’s interest in the conflict, and the role played by the claims-maker during the course of the conflict. (You might find it helpful to record this information in the attached table, ‘Mapping the Claims-Makers’.)

Analysing the Cases for and against the Bypass

3. Analyse the cases for and against the bypass. You may find it helpful to focus on the cases advanced by the Highways Agency (one of the principal proponents of the bypass) and Friends of the Earth (one of the principal opponents) – not least because these two organisation produced a wealth of materials during the course of the conflict. However, you do not have to restrict yourselves to materials produced by these two organisations if you think that materials produced by other organisations are of sufficient interest or importance. Your aim here is to explore the ways in which the cases were constructed. You are not, therefore, being asked to decide which is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Consequently, in your analysis, you should pay attention to the ways in which the following are used in the construction of the cases:

deployment of ‘known’ scientific ‘facts’ (theoretical and/or empirical) concerning, for example: traffic levels, the origins and destinations of journeys, the impacts (positive and negative) of the bypass (eg on the environment, out-of-town development, public health, recreations, traffic, etc); or claims that these so-called ‘facts’ are inherently uncertain, provisional, subjective and value-laden – as a basis for contesting knowledge claims advanced by other claims-makers, and/or advocating a precautionary approach to decision-making.
arguments based – explicitly or implicitly – on assumptions about the value of ‘nature’. For example, are the environmental impacts associated with the bypass deemed to be important only insofar as they affect people or society (an instrumentalist approach to environmental value) or because ‘nature’ is assumed to have intrinsic value (ie value in itself, independent of any usefulness it might have for humans)? How important are (different) environmental values deemed to be in relation to social values (see below)?
arguments based – explicitly or implicitly – on key social values. For example, how much importance is attached to through traffic as opposed to local traffic? How much importance is attached to private transport as opposed to public transport? How much importance is attached to issues relating to the health, safety and general well-being of different groups (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, local residents), including groups thought of as being particularly vulnerable (eg children, the elderly)? How much importance is attached to the views of so-called ‘experts’ as opposed to the lay public?
appeals to so-called authority figures (eg academic, political), to ‘public opinion’ or to ‘common sense’ – insofar as they provide support for the views expressed by the claims-maker.
use of language, including literary devices (eg metaphor, emotionally-charged language) – either to make the claims-maker’s arguments appear more persuasive or to discredit opposing knowledge claims or their proponents.
use/avoidance of technical terms – either because they help to convey a sense of expertise or because they are thought to either help or hinder attempts to get a message across to the intended audience/s.

Mapping the Claims-Makers

Click here to go to the printable table.

Notes:

(1) Detailed guidelines for analysing media coverage of environmental issues are provided in the TLR entitled EnviroFile: Representations of Environment/Nature in the Mass Media.

(2) For guidance on finding information about the conflict published in newspapers, including online newspaper sources, see The Newbury Bypass Factfile, available online at: http://www.geocities.com/newburybypass/index.html

(3) This document is now out of print. However, when contacted in May 2000, Friends of the Earth (tel. 020 7490 1555) said they still had a small number of copies left. Alternatively, it may be possible to obtain a copy by means of an interlibrary loan.

(4) To obtain a copy of this report (and other bypass literature), contact: Mr C.W. Odey, Project Manager, Newbury Bypass Team, Highways Agency, C5, Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL. (Tel. 0121 678 8131.) Note that a small fee may be charged for the report.