A Habermasian analysis of local renewable energy deliberations

Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda

“…In various ways, social processes and practices in and between energy cooperatives, as well as other forms of community energy, affect principles of participation, engagement, collaboration, and citizen involvement. These are crucial in the debate on civil society and participation, and include: (1) political and social participation in the context of planning renewable energy plants through formal and informal participation practices [85,86]; (2) financial and collaborative participation through membership in cooperatives with respect to organizational and internal participation practices [87]; and (3) communicative and deliberative consensus dialogs, often known as participation through discourse [88].…”

A closer look inside collaborative action: civic engagement and participation in community energy initiatives

“…Österberg and Nilsson (2009) go further, identifying active member participation in these internal structures as the "key to trust and commitment" from engaged citizens. Such participation has been found to depend on modes of governance (Ison, 2010), ownership and ownership structures (Warren and McFayden, 2010;Woodin et al,, 2010;Walker, 2008), member responsibilities and competences (Herbert, 2005), equal opportunities between communities (Park, 2012), conflicts, trust, and social capital , deliberation (Fast, 2013) and power factors (Middlemiss and Parrish, 2010). Relationships and connections to policy makers and the public (Cass, Walker and Devine-Wright, 2010) and network structures linking local communities to energy initiatives (Parag et al, 2013) have also been found to effect participation.…”

Legitimising the Laird? Communicative Action and the role of private landowner and community engagement in rural sustainability

“…He accompanies this critical perspective with a definition of discourse comprising the core components of the pragmatic argument of reason, the need for validity claims, and universality (i.e. that these principles transcend specific locations and situations) (Fast, 2013;Harvey Brown and Goodman, 2001). Mutual understanding (and 'Communicative Action') is thus supported through the creation of an 'ideal speech situation', where all parties have access to the same information ('implicit knowledge is theoretically explicit ';Harvey Brown and Goodman, 2001: 206), no relevant argument is excluded or ignored, and participants' views are based on the rationality of the argument rather than the instrumental steering mechanisms of 'status, money or power' (Habermas, 1973;Harvey Brown and Goodman, 2001).…”

“…The 'lifeworld' refers to shared knowledge that supports cultural reproduction, social integration and socialisation, and provides the capability to engage in reciprocal communication processes (Fast, 2013). The lifeworld may further be considered the realm of everyday experience and personal relationships, where social action is coordinated through interaction (see Healey and Hillier (1995) in Allmendinger, 2009;Healey, 2006).…”