Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions

Chilvers, Jason; Pallett, Helen; Hargreaves, Tom

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.020

Cited by 196 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Community-based projects are defined above as relatively small-scale, driven by social and sustainability motives and developed by community and civil society groups, coming in a variety of forms and using different nomenclature. They have been seen as important determinants of change in energy systems, both in terms of achieving more democratic, just and responsible outcomes but also in terms of raising awareness, communicating the problem of climate change and prompting behaviour change and mobilising citizen action (Chilvers, Pallett, & Hargreaves, 2018). Our analysis of stabilising and destabilising factors in our case study projects is summarized in Table 2 and some key conclusions can be drawn.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Revisiting urban energy initiatives in the UK: Declining local capacity in a shifting policy context

Rydin

Turcu

2019

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Revisiting urban energy initiatives in the UK: Declining local capacity in a shifting policy context

Rydin

Turcu

2019

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This calls for a new range of tools and methods in responsible innovation of smart farming and beyond, which are capable of mapping across diverse forms of societal engagement with emerging technologies and across innovation systems. This can draw on a number of promising mapping methods that are emerging in the social sciences and humanities, including digital methods (Rogers, 2013), issue mapping (Marres, 2015), systematic mapping (Chilvers et al, 2018) and forms of comparative case study and meta-analyses (Macnaghten and Chilvers, 2014). Such methods can produce new forms of social intelligence about diverse forms of societal and farmer engagement with smart farming, for example: more formal spaces like farmer networking events, farmer clusters, demonstration farms, demonstration test catchments, and consultations, through to a multitude of informal spaces where farmers and publics are interacting with sustainable agriculture including interactions with vets, advisors, seed merchants, and livestock markets, discussions on social media, more lowtech forms of agricultural practice, community-based agrienvironment solutions, and so on.…”

Section: Broadening Notions Of 'Inclusion'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Rose

Chilvers

2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

Self Cite

432

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is undergoing a new technology revolution supported by policy-makers around the world. While smart technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and the Internet of Things, could play an important role in achieving enhanced productivity and greater eco-efficiency, critics have suggested that the consideration of social implications is being side-lined. Research illustrates that some agricultural practitioners are concerned about using certain smart technologies. Indeed, some studies argue that agricultural societies may be changed, or "re-scripted," in undesirable ways, and there is precedent to suggest that wider society may be concerned about radical new agricultural technologies. We therefore encourage policy-makers, funders, technology companies, and researchers to consider the views of both farming communities and wider society. In agriculture, the concept of responsible innovation has not been widely considered, although two recent papers have made useful suggestions. We build on these interventions by arguing that key dimensions of responsible innovation-anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness-should be applied to this fourth agricultural revolution. We argue, however, that ideas of responsible innovation should be further developed in order to make them relevant and robust for emergent agri-tech, and that frameworks should be tested in practice to see if they can actively shape innovation trajectories. In making suggestions on how to construct a more comprehensive framework for responsible innovation in sustainable agriculture, we call for: (i) a more systemic approach that maps and attends to the wider ecology of innovations associated with this fourth agricultural revolution; (ii) a broadening of notions of "inclusion" in responsible innovation to account better for diverse and already existing spaces of participation in agri-tech, and (iii) greater testing of frameworks in practice to see if they are capable of making innovation processes more socially responsible. Some would argue that the "fourth agricultural revolution" (Lejon and Frankelius, 2015) or "agriculture 4.0" (Bartmer in Frankelius et al., 2017) has already begun. Each previous agricultural revolution was radical at the time-the first representing a transition from hunting and gathering to settled agriculture, the second relating to the British agricultural revolution in the 18th century, and the third relating to post-war productivity increases associated with mechanization and the Green Revolution in the developing world. While technological innovation is thus not new

show abstract

“…While attempting to reach beyond the partialities of discrete participation events and practices, however, it is important to recognize that any mapping is itself a participatory collective. Mapping methods, digital or otherwise, are always framed in particular ways, are partial, and are subject to overflows and ongoing emergence in wider ecologies (Chilvers, Pallett, and Hargreaves 2018). Attempts to map systems and spaces of participation should thus remain attentive to the wider ecology of issues that make up the "political situations" (Barry 2012) in which they are entangled.…”

Section: Ecologizing Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy

Chilvers

Kearnes

2019

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Self Cite

214

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past few decades, significant advances have been made in public engagement with, and the democratization of, science and technology. Despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust, avert crises of expertise and democracy, and build more socially responsive and responsible science and innovation. A central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbor what we call “residual realist” assumptions about participation and publics. Recent coproductionist accounts in science and technology studies (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as coproduced, relational, diverse, and emergent but have been somewhat reluctant to articulate what this means in practice. In this paper, we make this move by setting out a new framework of interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This framework comprises four paths to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framings, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologize participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements in wider systems; catalyze practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of technoscience and democracy.

show abstract

Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions

Cited by 196 publications

References 64 publications

Revisiting urban energy initiatives in the UK: Declining local capacity in a shifting policy context

Revisiting urban energy initiatives in the UK: Declining local capacity in a shifting policy context

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About