Participation in Transition(s): Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as Co-Produced, Emergent and Diverse

References

• Arendt, H. (2005). The promise of politics. New York, NY: Schocken.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Althone Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, K., & Schultz, S. (2010).  … a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 403–419. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., & Pidgeon, N. (2013). Deliberating energy transitions in the UK—Transforming the UK energy system: Public values, attitudes and acceptability. London: UKERC.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. (2009). Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography. In N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman, & B. Rhoads (Eds.), A Companion to environmental geography (pp. 400–417). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. (Ed.). (2010a). Participation, power and sustainable energy futures. A report of the ESRC critical public engagement seminar, 26 October 2010, University of Sussex (University of East Anglia, Norwich).
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. (2010b). Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology. Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283–310. doi: 10.1177/1075547012454598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., & Burgess, J. (2008). Power relations: The politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance. Environment and Planning A, 40(8), 1881–1900. doi: 10.1068/a40334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2016). Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., & Longhurst, N. (2012). Participation, politics and actor dynamics in low carbon energy transitions. Norwich: Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Comber, N., & Sheikh, S. (2011). Evaluation and learning from the 2050 public engagement programme. London: Office for Public Management.
   Google Scholar
• DECC. (2009). Smarter grids: The opportunity. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), HM Government. London.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Einsiedel, E., Boyd, A., Medlock, J., & Ashworth, P. (2013). Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture in the context of energy sources and climate change. Energy Policy, 53, 149–158. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 991–998. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238. doi: 10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., & Wynne, B. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foxon, T. (2013). Transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system. Energy Policy, 52, 10–24. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). A typology of transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Conclusion: How to understand transitions? How to influence them? Synthesis and lessons for further research. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development (pp. 320–344). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action—volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, G. P., & Pearson, P. (2013). Challenges of the transition to a low carbon, more electric future: From here to 2050. Energy Policy, 52, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, T. (2012). Dyfi solar club: An innovation history. Norwich: Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, T. (2014). Smart meters and the governance of energy use in the household. In J. Stripple & H. Bulkeley (Eds.), Governing the climate: New approaches to rationality, power and politics. (pp. 127–142) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38, 6111–6119. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2013). Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy, 52, 126–134. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00738.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42, 341–368. doi: 10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualising reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 333–350. doi: 10.1080/15239080701622790
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. (2009). The UK low carbon transition plan. Norwich: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Truffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for sustainable transport. London: Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ipsos-MORI. (2011). Findings from the DECC 2050 deliberative dialogues. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Findings-from-DECC-2050-Deliberative-Dialogues.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. doi: 10.1177/0306312706053350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jhagroe, S., & Loorbach, D. (2014). See no evil, hear no evil: The democratic potential of transition management. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 65–83. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of Niche formation: The approach of strategic Niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198. doi: 10.1080/09537329808524310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 649–666. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9303-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawhon, M., & Murphy, J. T. (2011). Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. Progress in Human Geography, 36(3), 354–378. doi: 10.1177/0309132511427960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezaun, J. (2007). A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups. In M. Callon, Y. Millo, & F. Munesia (Eds.), Market devices (pp. 130–151). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lezaun, J., & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 23(1), 161–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41, 955–967. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards and integrated framework. Research Policy, 37, 596–615. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780. doi: 10.1177/0306312706077367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2011). The cost of public involvement: Everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation. Economy and Society, 40(5), 510–533. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2011.602294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N., & Lezaun, J. (2011). Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4), 489–509. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2011.602293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable developing in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 299–314. doi: 10.1080/15239080701631544
   Google Scholar
• Michael, M. (2009). Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 617–631. doi: 10.1177/0963662508098581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nye, M., Whitmarsh, L., & Foxon, T. (2010). Socio-psychological perspectives on the active roles of domestic actors in transition to a lower carbon electricity economy. Environment and Planning A, 42(3), 697–714. doi: 10.1068/a4245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallett, H., & Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity. Environment and Planning A, 45(5), 1162–1183. doi: 10.1068/a45252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plows, A. (2008). Towards an analysis of the ‘success’ of UK green protests. British Politics, 3(1), 92–109. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulter, S. (2011, September 2). How smart meters costing £11.3bn are an expensive flop that trigger family rows. Daily Mail.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choices and climate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of Transitions and their governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In J. Grin, J Rotman, & J Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development (pp. 105–220). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders, C. (2012). Reformism and radicalism in the climate camp in Britain: Benign coexistence, tensions and prospects for bridging. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 829–846. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.692937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders, C., & Price, S. (2009). One person's eu-topia, another's hell: Climate camp as a heterotopia. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 117–122. doi: 10.1080/09644010802624850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlembach, R. (2011). How do radical climate movements negotiate their environmental and their social agendas? A study of debates within the camp for climate action (UK). Critical Social Policy, 31, 194–215. doi: 10.1177/0261018310395922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlembach, R., Lear, B., & Bowman, A. (2012). Science and ethics in the post-political era: Strategies within the camp for climate action. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 811–828. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.692938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sciencewise-ERC, n.d. The government's approach to public dialogue on science and technology. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Sciencewise-ERC-Guiding-Principles.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603. doi: 10.1080/09644010701419121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shove, E. (2012). Energy transitions in practice: The case of global indoor climate change. In G. Verbong & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Governing the energy transition: Reality, illusion or necessity? (pp. 51–74). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(1), 43–64. doi: 10.1177/1469540505049846
   Google Scholar
• Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39(4), 763–770. doi: 10.1068/a39310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2012). Civil society in sustainable energy transitions. In G. Verbong & D. Loorbach (Eds.), Governing the energy transition: Reality, illusion or necessity? (pp. 180–202). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2007). Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 351–373. doi: 10.1080/15239080701622873
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2006). Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In J. P., Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 225–272). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’—Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2012). Report of the United Nations Conference on sustainable development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012. New York, NY: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Voß, J. P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G., & Cass, N. (2007). Carbon reduction, ‘the public’ and renewable energy: Engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area, 39(4), 458–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., & Fay, H. (2007). Harnessing community energies: Explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 64–82. doi: 10.1162/glep.2007.7.2.64
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodsworth, A. (2008). Growth in the UK climate direction action movement: Experience, politics and practice. Norwich: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science, and technology: performing and obscuring a political—conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 99–110.
   Google Scholar