10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17446
This Crossing Boundary hosts contributions accounting for experiences and theoretical perspectives which may look distant for how they address the socio-technical transition in the energy field but, we believe, when put in conversation, help common questions and tentative answers come to the fore. Giorgio Osti, Paul Upham, Paula Maria Bögel and Paula Castro have been engaged in reflecting on their respective disciplines in relation to socio-technical transitions. Recalling and valorising the STS basis of MLP and SPT in connection with other disciplinary approaches may contribute to enrich on one side STS debates and on the other empirical research on socio-technical transition in a historical juncture where such an endeavour looks definitely urgent.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17446
2
en
Paula Castro
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
social practice theory
Connecting Dots: Multiple Perspectives on Socio-technical Transition and Social Practices
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
10
Crossing Boundaries
2020-01-30
2023-06-26
2020-01-30
2023-10-09
121-152
TS
Paula Castro
2019
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17446
121
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) and CIS-IUL
2038-3460
2
social practice theory
en
152
Connecting Dots: Multiple Perspectives on Socio-technical Transition and Social Practices
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17446/16295
10
                                                                           Crossing Boundaries

Connecting Dots: Multiple Perspectives
on Socio-technical Transition and Social
Practices
     Paolo Giardullo                              Luigi Pellizzoni             Sonia Brondi
      University of Padova                          University of Pisa       University of Bologna

        Giorgio Osti                                Paula Bögel                  Paul Upham
       University of Trieste                      Karlsruhe Institute of           Leuphana
                                                   Technology (KIT)          University of Lüneburg

                                                   Paula Castro
                                         Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
                                             (ISCTE-IUL) and CIS-IUL


    Abstract:. This Crossing Boundary hosts contributions accounting for ex-
    periences and theoretical perspectives which may look distant for how they
    address the socio-technical transition in the energy field but, we believe,
    when put in conversation, help common questions and tentative answers
    come to the fore. Giorgio Osti, Paul Upham, Paula Maria Bögel and Paula
    Castro have been engaged in reflecting on their respective disciplines in rela-
    tion to socio-technical transitions. Recalling and valorising the STS basis of
    MLP and SPT in connection with other disciplinary approaches may contrib-
    ute to enrich on one side STS debates and on the other empirical research
    on socio-technical transition in a historical juncture where such an endeav-
    our looks definitely urgent.

    Keywords: multi-level perspective; socio-technical transition; energy transi-
    tion; social practice theory.

    Submitted: September 28, 2019 – Accepted: November 22, 2019

    Corresponding author: Paolo Giardullo, Dept. FISPPA, University of Pa-
    dova, Via Cesarotti, 10-12, 35123, Padova. Email: Paolo.giardullo@unipd.it.




TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
10 (2) pp. 121-152 - ISSN 2038-3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                                       2019
122                                                           Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

Introducing Some Dots

Paolo Giardullo, Luigi Pellizzoni and Sonia Brondi

    Climate marches have come again to the forefront as expression of en-
vironmental movements. The issue of climate change is global and so are
social mobilizations and actions that further stress the seriousness of the
threat (e.g., Climate Networks and Fridays for Future strikes). To contain
the effects of human influence on climate and the environment, mobiliza-
tions urge institutions at national and international level to act more effec-
tively. Among the many actions required, a global energy transition from
finite fossil-based to renewable zero-carbon systems is probably the most
compelling and challenging. The toughest point is that fossil fuels con-
tribute dramatically to climate-impacting emissions yet, besides being the
dominant kind of energy source, are still an economically convenient en-
ergy source (Kerr 2010). Hence, far from entailing a univocal technologi-
cal substitution, energy transition involves an encompassing reconfigura-
tion of society, arguably implying a different social order. For instance,
transition requires a shift from a rigid approach based on centralized gov-
ernance and large-scale energy plants to a more flexible one based on dis-
tributed governance and small-scale energy production to increase effi-
ciency and improve management of energy demand (Smil 2005, 2019;
Sovacool 2016; Sarrica, Brondi and Cottone 2016). The pathway towards
a different energy regime is undoubtedly a crucial ecological issue, since it
can reduce the carbon footprint and limit detrimental mining and extract-
ing activities; yet, it also implies significant political, economic, social and
cultural shifts. Beside entailing a relevant geo-political shake-up, such a
re-configuration is multi-layered (Geels et al. 2017), as it includes both
technical innovations and changes in social practices, organizational life,
markets, civil society and a variety of policies and institutions.
    In the search for a more sustainable society and less climate impacting
forms of energy production, distribution and consumption, the social sci-
ences have contributed with relevant theoretical debates and empirical
studies. Several comprehensive conceptual frameworks have been pro-
posed to understand the multifaceted nature of the transition processes
(Araujo 2014). Two important ones are the multi-level perspective (MLP)
for the study of socio-technical transitions and social practice theory
(SPT). Both these approaches build significantly on STS. Compared with
other issues, however, the STS community has shown so far lesser interest
in this theme, also when studying techno-scientific innovation. On the
contrary, research from other disciplines, for example sociology of the
environment, anthropology, geography, political sciences and social psy-
chology, has produced valuable outcomes. Yet, studying the socio-
technical transition towards de-carbonization can hardly ignore an STS
point of view (Sovacool 2014). Such considerations led us to elicit reflec-
tions that can be useful to an STS readership. This Crossing Boundaries
Giardullo et. al.                                                         123
section aims, so to say, to connect (some) social science dots – hence its
title. More precisely, the following contributions present experiences and
theoretical perspectives coming from different scholarships, which may
look distant for their epistemological standpoints and ontological premis-
es yet, we believe, if put in conversation, may highlight common ques-
tions and tentative answers. Namely, against the backdrop of the urgency
and political relevance of assessing strengths and limits of a variety of
moves toward an energy transition, we promoted an interdisciplinary dia-
logue between environmental sociology (thanks to the contribution of
Giorgio Osti) and social psychology (thanks to the contribution of Paula
Maria Bögel, Paul Upham, and Paula Castro). Of course, this is a restrict-
ed choice, in no way corresponding to the claim that these disciplines are
the most relevant to studying this topic. We regard instead this Crossing
Boundaries section as a conversation that has to continue and broaden.
Valorising the STS grounds of MLP and SPT, on the other hand, may
contribute to enrich both STS theoretical debates and empirical research.
In this spirit, we asked the invited authors to reflect on the way their re-
spective disciplines address socio-technical transitions.
     As developed by Geels (2002), on the basis of a first formulation of
Rip and Kemp (1998), MLP approaches socio-technical transition by dis-
tinguishing analytically three social levels, corresponding to different spa-
tial and organisational scales, from micro to macro, and provided with
different degrees of stability, which account for how socio-technical inno-
vation trajectories develop: i) niches, sufficiently protected from socio-
technical pressures, where innovation can spring out; ii) established so-
cio-technical practices based on norms, institutions and material infra-
structures, which constitute relatively stable regimes, and with which in-
novation has to engage if it is not to remain confined in niches; iii) an
“exogenous socio-technical landscape” consisting of a set of heterogene-
ous factors (Geels 2011). Landscapes include external conditions such as
environmental constraints, as well as normative and cultural norms. These
constitute the most durable and hard-to-change context of socio-technical
regimes (Geels 2002). Beside evolutionary economics and neo-
institutionalism, MLP builds on the Dutch tradition of social studies of
science and technology; consistently with its origins, it has been applied
to understanding socio-technical transitions, looking at these from a co-
evolutionary outlook. MLP has been applied to account for individual
mobility, the trajectory toward steamships and the development of air-
planes engines (Geels 2005). It has been successfully applied as well to
the energy sector, for studying the transition towards sustainability.
Moreover, it is recognized as a valuable framework for policy-oriented
research (Hargreaves, Longhurst and Seyfang 2013). SPT, at least in the
guise promoted by Shove, Pantzar and Walker (2012)1, conceives of prac-
tices as a unit of analysis. A practice is to be distinguished from single ac-
tions, as it consists in a nexus of repeated actions and social life arrange-
ments. So, practices exist only in relation with others and emerge as such


                                                                          123
124                                                         Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

when their components – skills or abilities, technologies and artefacts,
and symbolic meanings – are connected (Shove and Walker 2007). SPT is
popular among scholars engaged in a variety of fields (Hui, Schatzki and
Shove 2017), yet, as noted by Warde (2014), sustainable consumption is a
research topic which not only is dominant but has led to theoretical de-
velopments whose relevance extends well beyond this particular issue.
Such version of SPT is micro-oriented, addressing how social dynamics
are reproduced and can be disrupted through new arrangements emerg-
ing between material elements, such as technological artefacts, skills re-
quired to use them and the symbolic value they bring with them (Har-
greaves 2011).
    In spite of some connections, MLP and SPT are considered as com-
peting outlooks (Hargreaves, Longhurst and Seyfang 2013), since their
basic approach differs. MLP privileges a vertical perspective that moves
upstream from niches of innovation to broader changes. In this regard, it
aims to reply to criticisms addressed to STS prevailing micro-focus on so-
cio-technical change, for its failure in providing an encompassing picture
to the benefit of an analysis of relatively closed, local contexts (Geels
2002, p. 1259). However, MLP ostensibly meets with some limitations.
For example, it has been criticized for its insufficient consideration of the
role of materiality, of the dispersed and uneven distribution of agency and
power, and of the importance of the historical, spatial and political con-
text (Avelino et al. 2016). Other criticisms stress that the assumption that
innovation follows a vertical trajectory leads to an excessive focus on in-
stitutions. Furthermore, MLP typical work on secondary analyses of offi-
cial data may represent a methodological weakness. By connecting these
criticisms with sustainability issues, moreover, inconsistencies and ambiv-
alences emerge, especially regarding the renewable energy sector. Brand
new regimes do not always fulfil their promises at local level (Scotti and
Minervini 2016); conversely, niches do not necessarily promote a detach-
ment from existing regimes (see e.g. Schreuer 2016).
    SPT, in its turn, looks mainly at the horizontal circulation of different
components of human activities (Shove 2012). As a result, a critique,
mainly coming from MLP scholars, is that studies of practices are “highly
contextual, and often developed in response to local problems” (Geels
2019, p. 7). Consequently, SPT analyses of sustainability transition do not
take particular care of the different scales at which local processes take
place, concentrating chiefly on everyday life (Welch and Yates 2018).
    Attempts at integrating between MLP and SPT have been already
proposed for instance, at a theoretical level, by Geels (2011) and Raven
(2012). Others have re-analysed MLP case studies adopting an SPT out-
look and vice versa (Hargreaves, Longhurst and Seyfang 2013). The take-
home-message, here, is to refuse ontological partisanship. Indeed, re-
searchers may profit from considering both vertical and horizontal trajec-
tories of innovation, as favouring one does not necessarily entails neglect-
ing the other. Taking these elements together, one can see additional
Giardullo et. al.                                                         125
room for discussion, not only concerning the scale on which to focus, but
also what to look at and what type of processes one is aiming to disclose.
Through this Crossing Boundary section, we aim to expand these issues
in interdisciplinary terms, according to an STS sensitivity for socio-
material connections. We refer to the role of non-human agents, from in-
frastructures to devices for energy consumption monitoring. These have a
crucial relevance both because of the path dependency they contribute to
generate, as Osti’s paper stresses, and because “delegation” to new tech-
nological tools implies social control. Osti elaborates on the opportunity
of merging social sciences with the hard sciences that deal with energy
issues; apart from the already mentioned role of material elements, he
looks at the study of social practices as instrumental to enhancing the sig-
nificance of the social relations implied in the energy transition. A risk in
studying these questions he underscores is of plunging into renewed
forms of determinism. It is easy, and sometimes convenient in analytical
terms, to depict the individual as a purely rational actor; indeed, there is
plenty of literature devoted to how behaviour can be oriented through
scripts inscribed in technical objects and their arrangement in social spac-
es (see for example the “nudge” approach: Thaler and Sunstein 2008).
Along this way, however, one falls into a well-known technological reduc-
tionism.
    Social psychology can contribute to overcoming rationalistic perspec-
tives as well: in particular, cognitive and behavioural approaches have
provided useful insights in this direction. However, such approaches suf-
fer from being focused on individual-level issues (e.g. attitudes, emotions,
motives). The contribution of Upham, Bögel and Castro highlights lines
for further development in the understanding of the subjective experi-
ence of individual actors and groups imbricated in the energy transition
processes. Their point concerns the need to achieve a more comprehen-
sive understanding of the individual-society link. A more co-generative
vision of social changes lies in social representations and identity theories.
In particular, these theories may complement the SPT approach, since
they focus on psychosocial processes, going beyond the individual level,
and fostering the vision of individuals as agents of transition rather than
passive recipients. Moreover, an integrated reading of these different the-
oretical approaches allows for a better comprehension of the role of the
material world and its components as well as their appropriateness in eve-
ryday life.
    There are several open questions, which the papers contribute to
highlight: for instance, how to apply a flexible approach instead of aiming
at a grand theory. The study of practices, in this sense, is promising; how-
ever, it is seldom used for comparative studies. As the next socio-
technical transition is likely to be first of all centered on energy, future
research on this subject looks definitely urgent.




                                                                          125
126                                                               Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

References

Araújo, K. (2014) The Emerging Field Of Energy Transitions: Progress, Chal-
    lenges, And Opportunities, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 1, pp.
    112-121.
Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., and Jhagroe, S. (2016) The Politics of Sustainability
    Transitions, in “Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning”, 18 (5), pp.
    557-567.
Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration
    Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-study, in “Research policy”,
    31 (8-9), pp. 1257-1274.
Geels, F.W. (2019) Socio-technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of
    Criticisms and Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective, in “Current Opin-
    ion in Environmental Sustainability”.
Geels, F.W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., and Sorrell, S. (2017) Sociotechnical
    Transitions for Deep Decarbonization, in “Science”, 357 (6357), pp. 1242-
    1244.
Hargreaves, T. (2011) Practice-ing Behaviour Change: Applying Social Practice
    Theory to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, in “Journal of Consumer
    Culture”, 11 (1), pp. 79-99.
Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., and Seyfang, G. (2013) Up, Down, Round and
    Round: Connecting Regimes and Practices in Innovation for Sustainability, in
    “Environment and Planning A”, 45 (2), pp. 402-420.
Hui, A., Schatzki, T., and Shove, E., (2017) Introduction, in Hui, A., Schatzki, T.,
    and Shove, E. (Eds.) The Nexus of Practices: Connections, Constellations,
    Practitioners, London, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1-7.
Kerr, R.A., (2010) Do We Have the Energy for the Next Transition?, in “Sci-
    ence”, 329 (5993), pp. 780-781.
Postill, J. (2010) Introduction, in Bräuchler B. and Postill J. (eds) Theorising Me-
    dia and Practice. Oxford, Berghahn Books, pp. 1-33.
Raven, R. (2012) Analyzing Emerging Sustainable Energy Niches in Europe: A
    Strategic Niche Management Perspective, in Verbong, G., and Loorbach, D.
    (eds.) Governing the energy transition: reality, illusion or necessity?, New
    York-Oxon, Routledge, pp. 136-162.
Rip, A., and Kemp, R. (1998) Technological change, in Human choice and cli-
    mate change, Vol. 2, Columbus, Ohio, Battelle Press, pp. 327-399.
Sarrica, M., Brondi, S., Cottone, P., and Mazzara, B.M. (2016). One, No One,
    One Hundred Thousand Energy Transitions in Europe: The Quest for a Cul-
    tural Approach, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 13, pp. 1-14.
Schreuer, A. (2016) The Establishment of Citizen Power Plants in Austria: A Pro-
    cess of Empowerment?, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 13, pp. 126-
    135.
Shove, E. (2012) Energy Transitions in Practice: The Case of Global Indoor Cli-
    mate Change, In Verbong G., Loorbach D., (eds) Governing the Energy
    Transition: Reality, Illusion or Necessity, London, Routledge, pp. 62-85.
Giardullo et. al.                                                            127
Shove, E., and Walker, G. (2007) CAUTION! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Prac-
   tice, and Sustainable Transition Management, in “Environment and planning
   A”, 39 (4), pp. 763-770.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice:
   Everyday Life and How It Changes, London, Sage.
Scotti, I. and Minervini, D. (2017) Performative Connections: Translating Sus-
   tainable Energy Transition by Local Communities, in “Innovation: The Euro-
   pean Journal of Social Science Research”, 30 (3), pp. 350-364.
Sovacool, B.K. (2014) What Are We Doing Here? Analyzing Fifteen Years of En-
   ergy Scholarship and Proposing a Social Science Research Agenda, in “Energy
   Research & Social Science”, 1, pp. 1-29.
Sovacool, B.K. (2016) How Long Will It Take? Conceptualizing the Temporal
   Dynamics of Energy Transitions, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 13,
   pp. 202-215.
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein C.R., (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about
   Health, Wealth, and Happinesss, London, Penguin Books.
Welch, D., and Yates, L. (2018) The Practices of Collective Action: Practice The-
   ory, Sustainability Transitions and Social Change, in “Journal for the Theory
   of Social Behaviour”, 48 (3), pp. 288-305.



                                      ***

Above, Beside, Under: Three Ways Social Technical Disci-
plines Can Work Together in the Energy Transition

Giorgio Osti2

Introduction

    Experts with different backgrounds often face together inextricable
energy issues concerning pollution, geopolitical unbalances, and conflicts
with local populations. They broadly agree on the necessity to adopt a
multidimensional approach (Freunek Müller et al. 2015), but they rarely
discuss how knowledge is developed and shared.
    Thus, it is useful to elaborate some points for a reciprocal contribu-
tion between social sciences - more specifically sociology - and disciplines
that have direct involvement with energy management. The latter are
usually specialisations of engineering (Goldblatt et al. 2012). In this essay,
they will be identified for convenience as technical disciplines.
    The aim of this paper is to frame the relationship between social and
technical knowledges of energy transition. The temptation of reduction-
ism is strong, even for disciplines, such as spatial sociology, that consider
themselves systemic (Rutherford and Coutard 2014). We will neither ar-


                                                                             127
128                                                        Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

rive at a unique methodological approach, nor at a ‘recalibration of vari-
ous scientific hierarchies’ (Asdal and Marres 2014, p. 2056). The relation-
ships between social and technical disciplines are and have to remain
‘plural’. The dream of a grand theory including any kind of knowledge
has to move forward.
    The paper deals with three ways social sciences and techno-sciences
match in the attempt to enact environmental change (Asdal and Marres
2014). The reciprocal position of social sciences and techno-science will
be illustrated with three spatial metaphors: above, beside (or in between),
and under. Distinct attention is given to some perspectives included in
this Crossing Boundaries section: spatial forms, material actors, and social
practices. The last one is probably the key for representing the energy
transition in a more relational way, overcoming the limits of both holistic
and atomistic analyses. This sentence will be qualified thanks to further
middle-range categories proposed here, namely monitoring, sharing, play-
ing with energy: their application will be the final result of the paper.

   Above, Beside, Under: Three Ways Social and Technical
disciplines Can Stay Together

    A broad justification for dealing with relationships between disci-
plines in a plural way comes from the observation of widespread phe-
nomena related to energy issues. We often note that the latter are framed
according to geopolitical schemes; they are a vital resource for winning
wars and assuring the economic development of countries (Tidwell and
Smith 2015). The role of energy sources for national security is indeed
essential; thus, their exploitation has to be put as a dependent factor of
other, more powerful processes. Socio-political disciplines then deal with
specific knowledges about energy extraction, distribution, and use from a
more general standpoint. We may call it the ‘above’ position.
    A less widespread position can be called the ‘beside’ or ‘in-between’
one. Immediately after the launch of public schemes for subsidies, renew-
able energy sources (RES) became an industrial sector, growing in the
market but necessarily cultivating connections with public policies and
institutions. Indeed, any new electric device needs public authorisation.
For this reason, energy transition raised a great number of interest groups
pressing authorities for permission and support. In this case, the socio-
political sciences are beside or in between the technical ones.
    The third outlook social sciences offer to techno-sciences in relation
to energy issues can be called ‘below’ position. It is exemplified by the
great support socio-psychological disciplines provide to economic choices
of consumers. The individual demand of energy is only apparently linked
to natural needs of comfort. It is instead filtered by comparisons with
other consumers and a variety of ergonomics that take the name of home
automation (domotica in Italian). In this case, the social sciences provide
information useful for adapting technical devices to consumers’ tastes.
Giardullo et. al.                                                          129
     The ‘above’ perspective is endorsed by relevant scholarships. To men-
tion a few of them we can include: i) The cognitive frames that are rele-
vant for accounting for the embeddedness and social epistemology
(Yasunori, Walsh 2010) of energy transition (Osti 2012). ii) Political ecol-
ogy which provides a robust framework in order to locate struggles for
energy within a more general conflict of capitalism with actors opposing
its tendency to expropriation and exploitation of land and labour (Sova-
cool 2016). iii) Energy as first mover of society: indeed, there was a mo-
ment in the history of sociology when energy was considered as an essen-
tial component of social functioning (Carrosio 2014). Ecological ap-
proaches based on resources and population can be inserted as well in
this vision of energy.
     To give a further example of the ‘above’ approach, we can use two
controversial Dutch cases, one project concerning shale gas extraction
and the second about the capture of CO2 as studied by Pesch et al.
(2018). The authors identify three types of justice claims concerning both
the projects — distributive, procedural, and based on recognition — and
two types of trajectories for their assessment:
     - overflowing (formal trajectory embedded in the legal system)
     - backflowing (informal trajectory mainly embedded in public dis-
       course and grassroots mobilisation).
     The claim based on the struggle for recognition of local public re-
sistance (that entails dignity, respect, identity, etc.) is the most neglected,
but it is of high efficacy for both an understanding of the events and the
capacity to mobilise people. According to Pesch and colleagues (2018),
there is an ongoing and fertile passage between formal and informal types
of assessment, whose effect is the scaling up of controversies toward the
national level (see other cases in Pellizzoni 2011). In fact, after these con-
flicts, the government has changed the procedure for environmental as-
sessment of large-scale works (Pesch et al 2018, p. 831).
     A connection between the already mentioned frame-based approaches
and those based on political ecology is further noteworthy. For example,
Franklin and Osborne (2017) adopted the same typology of justice
claims. But they used it for ideological reasons. They argued that the ar-
gument about the financial burden of photovoltaic panels, since their in-
stallation is not affordable for poorer households, serves the private local
utility to cover its own interests for fossil sources of energy. In this sense,
the Marxist concept of ideology makes this technical procedure compre-
hensible within a larger framework. Even though they offer a consistent
perspective, these ‘above’ approaches present some limitations. Both po-
litical ecology and cognitive sociology make holistic claims, but they ne-
glect the power of relationships (see debate in Wagenaar and Bartels
2016). These can modify both the recognition process (it is possible that a
participatory process itself raises the issue of local identity and dignity)
and the relations of production. For example, utility workers, usually the
weaker side in labour relations, become stronger in the negotiation and


                                                                           129
130                                                         Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

press the managers to leave dominant fossil sources. A well-organised as-
sociation of consumers can counteract and change the terms of energy
trade. Usually, the ‘above’ frameworks are rigid, conceiving material in-
terests or cultural values as immovable data. The application of iterative
approaches, primarily by scholars, can modify these fixities, giving more
agency not only to weaker social parts (e.g., the local population) but also
to manufactures and infrastructures’ management. Micro-wind turbines
are generally more acceptable than big ones. If local people oppose giant
wind farms, the energy company may opt for introducing smaller turbines
(which have their own logic of action).
    The ‘beside’ approach needs a brief introduction. It deals with the po-
sition of the social sciences in between advanced technical systems. The
basic idea is the existence of organisational fields developing through sets
of institutionalised rules (neo-institutionalism of DiMaggio and Powell
1991; on energy issue, Fuchs and Hinderer 2014). However, such fields
do not depend passively on external general systems as previous approach
does. Rather they multiply, specialise, and equip themselves with some
sort of self-government, self-learning, and self-celebration (Lidskog and
Sundqvist 2018).
    All these ‘selves’ provide good and cost-effective functioning, but they
raise the need for professional transactions with other systems. Rarely is
an energy system completely self-sufficient. Bad or rarefied relationships
with other systems cause a lot of problems (transaction costs). Thus,
communication systems have to be created in between. To think this can
happen automatically or only thanks to the installation of sophisticated
ICTs is an illusion. The fulfilment of so-called energy sector unbundbling,
which should be able to break the old monopolies, requires new compa-
nies specialised in human and social communication. Of course, these in-
termediate actors adopt other ICTs; see, for example, the electric market,
which works like the stock exchange.
    MLP, also called ‘theory of transition’, is frequently used in the energy
sector. It can be considered exemplary of the need for social ‘bridges’ be-
tween separated institutionalised fields. Geels (2010) portrays the real
world as a set of fields – landscape, regime, and niches – with different
levels of organisation, recognition and, finally, closure to external forces.
Change happens when a specific project aligns one system with another,
creating a socio-technical innovation. In this kind of approaches, the sim-
plest case is the alignement of innovation niche to socio-technical regime
(Schot and Geels 2008).
    A famous retrospective research is the transition from horse-drawn
carriages to automobiles (Geels 2005). Geels (2005) shows that several
socio-political systems intersect with the rise of modern mobility systems,
in particular, new consumer tastes and windows of opportunity for nor-
mative change. His approach is fully socio-technical. Automobiles are
thus not only an efficient way to move, but also a means that allows the
interaction of four specific social needs: the need for personalised
Giardullo et. al.                                                         131
transport in terms of destination and privacy (avoiding contact with other
passengers); the need for moving outside the city for recreation (picnic);
the need for organising new racing fields; and the need for connecting
people living in suburbs or on farms. These niches coalesce in favour of
small autonomous means of locomotion, whereas an omnibus – a collec-
tive means of transport – clearly does not match with the individualised
needs for spatial mobility.
     Geels (2005) recognises there is no perfect alignment of fields, show-
ing that the multilevel pattern works also in deviant cases. He notes a
long co-existence between horse-drawn carriage and automobile regimes.
In general, we think of simple substitution, but sometimes transfer pre-
vails: the company making carriages starts installing engines in them. In-
termediate systems emerge in between the niche and the regime; thus,
electric trams were working for a long period after private automobile af-
firmation and today they know a renaissance.
     Ultimately, MLP, even if more flexible than holistic or ‘above’ models,
still follows a sort of ecological and institutional functionalism. Indeed,
such a model proposes a population ecology of organisations that are mu-
tually interdependent and variably recognised by institutions (Hannan
and Freeman 1977). In this regard, interdependency is based on mutual
satisfaction, while public recognition happens because of adaptation to
rules, principles, or customs.
     The double contingency of relational approaches (Donati 2010) and
the idea of role distance typical of dramaturgic allegory (Goffman 1961)
provide a fruitful terrain for critique. In MLP, actors are almost absent;
we talk of population according to ecological models. Thus, agency is ne-
glected, including the possibility of a range of reactions from actants,
such as material objects, and socio-technical configurations (Walker and
Cass 2007). In the study on private car diffusion, it is easy to imagine a
socio-technical system formed by a driver and his/her own car, almost in-
distinguishable from one another. Yet, the diffusion of the self-driving car
is bound to change the balance of agency between driver and means of
transport in favour of the latter. The actant’s perspective thus becomes
more relevant, shifting the attention to algorithms and those who elabo-
rate them.
     Relational approaches can be declined in terms of reciprocity (Göbel
et al. 2013). In that case, MLP appears even more distant, as one may
wonder whether an actant – imagine not only a self-driving car, but also
an automatic system for regulating a hydropower plant – may be able to
use the register of reciprocity. Modern hydropower plants have a system
for recharging the basin with the water below. The plant is regulated by
the principle of best price/least cost of working, because of the men-
tioned introduction of an electric market. In theory, such a plant could be
regulated by a mix of principles, including the need for water by down-
stream farmers, conservation of a minimum flow, and beauties of an arti-
ficial basin full of water. At this stage, a relevant question might be if and


                                                                          131
132                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

how the software, managing the hydropower plant, will be able to also
regulate relationships of reciprocity between different uses of water.
    Looking at those objects through such a perspective introduces us to
the third way social sciences and techno-sciences interact: that is, by lo-
cating the former below the latter. Basically, social scientists receive re-
quests and instructions from engineers. To make some examples, manag-
ers of energy utilities often ask to survey their consumers or employers to
determine the level of satisfaction with the services provided. Similarly,
managers ask experts of communication to inform residents nearby a
power plant or open a dialogue with them about forthcoming major in-
vestments for its enlargement; indeed, there is an extensive literature on
methods of participation (Chilvers and Kearnes 2015).
    On the other hand, behavioural sciences such as psychology provide
the best example of the ‘below’ position, because they tend to accept
without discussing the aim of the organisation that commissions a re-
search (Kasperbauer 2017). The main example comes from the ‘nudge’
approach, in which a light system of incentives pushes people to adopt
behaviours more coherent with the goals of saving energy and, conse-
quently, money (Thaler and Sunstein 2014). Venier and Palmieri (2018),
managers of an important Italian utility (Gruppo Hera), show in a very
practical way the usefulness of the nudge approach. They have two prem-
ises:
         i. Pro environmental policies have to be plural, contemplating bonding
      rules, material incentives, and a wide range of measures based on moral sua-
      sion. Most nudge techniques fall within the last category;
        ii. It is easier and more convenient to change people’s behaviours than ma-
      chines. People are more flexible than industrial devices, which also have a
      high cost of initial investment. On the contrary, users can be ‘convinced’
      with simple methods, changing the architecture of the system. Heating mod-
      ularisation of spaces is a typical example: rather than changing all the heat-
      ers, it is easy to digitalise the system and make people aware of their levels of
      consumption.

    The second premise by Venier and Palmieri (2018) shows an unex-
pected resistance to change by non-human actors. Mechanical devices
built at a big scale and highly integrated show more resistance than mod-
ular settings made of small devices only partially connected. Smart grids
in the energy sector imply the use of sophisticated software quite close to
artificial intelligence. Thus, the crucial point is how modular units of en-
ergy production and consumption interact and whether they are consid-
ered as actants or socio-technical devices.
    Before getting to a conclusion on this important aspect, we come back
to the basic information provided by the nudge approach applied to en-
ergy saving. Venier and Palmieri (2018) confirm the approach of Thaler
and Sunstein (2014): information supply on levels of consumptions above
the average induces energy savings. People are more averse to losing
money than being rewarded; thus, they are more committed towards en-
Giardullo et. al.                                                         133
ergy saving than winning a prize as the best consumer. On the other
hand, according to Venier and Palmieri (2018), this strategy is not ex-
empted from unwanted outcomes; indeed, most virtuous consumers may
tend to consume more, the so-called rebound effect (see Greening et al.
2000).
    Hera managers, however, point out that psychological behaviourism
works more for households than for firms. Indeed, material incentives for
firms are still necessary for inducing energy saving. The reasons are again
psychological but, in this case, they are internal to the organisation. First,
factory managers are concentrated on the core business, which unlikely is
energy saving for the sake of the environment; second, the savings
achieved with energy saving measures are not necessarily included in a
scheme for assessing managers’ performance. As a result, it is likely that
managers activate on energy only if they see great gain for company, such
as major material incentives arriving from outside. Otherwise, they prefer
to contract out any energy service, like saving interventions and mainte-
nance of energy devices. In other words, managers are not motivated to
compete with managers of other firms on the field of energy.
    Behavioural psychology seems to work better for households than for
factories. Thus, the ‘below’ position of social sciences needs both internal
integration between different kinds of psychologies, and vertical integra-
tion with other approaches, at least history and sociology, placed in the
‘above’ and ‘beside’ positions. The architecture of energy saving needs –
according to Hera managers’ conclusion – extensive knowledge of each
factory, its employers, and its physical structure for planning ad hoc in-
terventions, discussed with all stakeholders. Otherwise, it is preferable to
externalise the energy service, losing sovereignty and increasing transac-
tion costs.
    In conclusion, psychological mechanisms have their own strength, but
they have to be supported by i) analyses of the socio-cultural context
(e.g., in mainly Protestant countries the value of competition is more ac-
cepted, than in non-Protestant ones: see Hayward and Kemmelmeier
2007, p. 392); ii) understanding of the professional ethics of managers
and employers, who can prefer the option ‘to buy’ the energy service than
‘to make’ it internally; and iii) the study of the geography of reference
groups: near businesses rarely work as ‘benchmarks’ for readjusting a
company behaviour. Finally, relational dynamics have to be considered,
because the nudge approach is based on a cognitive comparison, not on
material exchanges among actors. This last criticism introduces the at-
tempt to make a combination of varied social science positions vis-à-vis
the techno-sciences. This attempt relies on the study of social practices.




                                                                          133
134                                                           Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

Social practices in Search of a Model

    The social practice approach (SPA) has been extensively used in envi-
ronmental and energy sociology (Bartiaux et al. 2014). The reason ap-
pears clear looking at the limits of behavioural approaches. SPA allows
considering simultaneously agency, space, and time — in other terms, ac-
tions, environments, and durability. Because a large part of human activi-
ty is routine with little variation, it appeared clear that neither single acts
nor contexts in isolation have to be studied but long sequences of situated
interactions (Shove 2017). Thus, energy saving behaviour is neither a
simple reaction to a stimulus (your neighbour is better than you) nor the
result of just a reflection in the actor’s mind, as some cognitive approach-
es affirm; nor, finally, the sediment of prolonged interactions, as social
constructivists hold. It is a practice in which cultures, spaces, and habits
co-exist, forming appropriate ‘atmospheres’ (Löw 2008).
    Practices of energy saving thus become a sequence of small daily ges-
tures, made up of control of the temperature in the room, calculated
openness of windows, adequate clothing, and so on. They are effective as
long as they are under the control of actors (agency) and affordable,
without great investments in infrastructures. Moreover, the advantage of
such an approach is it allows analysing ecological incoherence. Pro-
environmental behaviours are often not integrated, determining a trade-
off effect which undermines the final result: for instance, solar parks pro-
duce renewable energy but entail sterilisation of farmland (Sacchelli et al.
2016).
    Despite being useful, SPT seems less effective when we move from
micro-situations to important choices or management of big organisa-
tions. It is the same difficulty that the nudge approach has to face vis-à-vis
factories and managers. The practices one is helpful for understanding
routines but less for accounting for crucial choices, like building a house
or buying a car. In the last cases, we need a model of society able to for-
malise and abstract from thousand variants of action + situations. Thus,
practices become an empty box in search of a framework. Traditionally,
sociology adopted Weber’s notion of rationality, with variable adjust-
ments (types of rationality); subsequently, another representation of hu-
mankind has been the dramaturgy of Goffman, which has enjoyed a vast
success. The great success of political ecology is a further sign of this
search for filling the box of energy studies with a model (Cherp et al.
2018).
    In order to reduce the instrumental attitude of above approaches such
as political ecology, the game-playing metaphor has been recently intro-
duced in environmental studies (Osti 2018, 2019). It should help to diver-
sify the range of key factors able to assemble and give coherence to pro-
environmental practices. Thus, the practices approach is completed with
a general interpretation of social reality (model). It is intriguing that the
Giardullo et. al.                                                        135
idea of energy transition can be used for representing the entire evolution
of society (Carrosio 2014; Gabrys 2014).
    The idea of social practices in search of a model is arguably a first re-
sult of our analysis. However, even social models may be blamed to be
too abstract and rigid for energy studies. A way to keep both models and
their concrete application to the variety of energy practices is to reduce
the scale of abstraction and to focus on middle-range processes.
    Relevant middle-range socio-technical processes for energy issues can
be:
            i.    monitoring
           ii.    sharing
          iii.    playing

    Monitoring. In the energy field, but common to all environmental is-
sues, monitoring has a central role at the social level (Environment Man-
agement Group 2012). The success of or appeal to citizen science exper-
iments (Wylie et al. 2014) reveals important things: there is great uncer-
tainty on how complex systems work. Energy is one of these, even if more
predictable and measurable than others. In fact, full automation of power
plants or of home services does not solve the need for manual regulations.
At the same time, diffuse generation and smart grids advance very slowly,
because the interface with human agents is unpredictable and full of side
effects. A way to circumvent this impasse, ostensibly, is monitoring. This
should be done in terms of extensive and conscious participation, that is
by establishing routines of self- or shared monitoring. On this point, there
is major room for cooperation between social and techno-science practic-
es.
    Sharing. In the energy field, we noticed sharp differences in terms of
the self-organisation of residential communities. In some European coun-
tries, energy communities have flourished; in Italy, they have flourished
only in Alpine border areas. Evidently, cultural biases play a role since,
for instance, other areas such as Central Europe generally have proven to
be more innovative (Magnani and Osti 2016). Nevertheless, special and
accidental combinations between social organisation and renewable ener-
gy packages have occurred. Both cultural determinism and technological
determinism are to be abandoned. Case-by-case matching of community
resources and energy packages has to be explored. Innovative models
need to be identified, such as non-contiguous networks of citizens sharing
green energy. For network configuration, different technological packag-
es are necessary.
    Playing. In the energy field, we have seen the desire for competition
emerging as a leverage for inducing worthy behaviours. When experi-
mental simulations are conducted, this emerges as a result, having thus an
exemplary value. But we would be prone to believe that people partici-
pating in experiments contributing to calculate sets of statistics are not
like Pavlov’s dog, simply responding to a stimulus. À la Goffman (1961),


                                                                         135
136                                                                Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

they can simulate, adapting to research expectations and playing the role
of good test subjects. The role distance concept helps in this and in other
cases to highlight the human capacity to play with others and with tech-
nological packages. We know role distance is relative and changing;
sometimes the game itself takes the upper hand and everything becomes
terribly confused for players themselves. Hence, a playing approach
shows us the limited importance of experiments.

Conclusion

     As a final remark, two further points can be highlighted: i) a plurality
of positions and relationships among disciplines is beneficial to a better
understanding of the energy issue; social sciences are not only ancillary to
the ‘hard’ ones but can also tackle the root of the problems and help con-
necting complex systems. This has a symbolic and practical importance in
projects concerning energy transition, which have often a multidiscipli-
nary character. ii) There is a sort of circularity within social sciences: first,
the relational perspective helps overcoming some limits of traditional ho-
listic and atomistic approaches; then, practices theory adds to relations a
spatial-temporal dimension; finally, and this closes the circle, practices
need more general frames, an ideology or an anthropology, in order to
cumulate knowledge, to compare different countries and to formulate
previsions.


References

Asdal, K. and Marres, N. (2014) Performing Environmental Change: The Politics
   of Social Science Methods, in “Environment and Planning A”, 46, pp. 2055-
   2064.
Bartiaux, F., Gram-Hanssen, K., Fonseca, P., Ozolina, L. and Christensen, T.H.
   (2014) A Practice-Theory Approach to Homeowners' Energy Retrofits in
   Four European Areas, in “Building Research and Information: The Interna-
   tional Journal of Research, Development and Demonstration”, 42 (4), pp.
   525-538.
Carrosio, G. (2014) Energia e scienze sociali: stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricer-
   ca, in “Quaderni di sociologia”, LVIII 66 (3), pp. 107-116.
Cherp, A., Vinichenko, V., Jewell, J., Brutschin, E. and Sovacool, B. (2018) Inte-
   grating Techno-Economic, Socio-Technical and Political Perspectives on Na-
   tional Energy Transitions: A Meta-Theoretical Framework, in “Energy Re-
   search & Social Science”, 37, pp. 175-190.
Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds.) (2015) Remaking Participation: Science, Envi-
   ronment and Emergent Publics, London and New York, Routledge.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991) The iron cage revisited: institutional
   isomorphism and collective rationality, in P.J. DiMaggio and W.W. Powell
Giardullo et. al.                                                             137
   (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, The
   University of Chicago Press, pp. 63-82.
Donati, P. (2010) Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences,
   London and New York, Routledge.
Environment Management Group (2012) A Framework for Advancing Environ-
   mental and Social Sustainability, in “The United Nations System”, Geneva,
   United Nations.
Franklin, R. and Osborne, T. (2017) Toward an Urban Political Ecology of Ener-
   gy Justice: The Case of Rooftop Solar in Tucson, AZ, in “Journal of Political
   Ecology”, 24 (1), pp. 1055-1076.
Freunek Müller, M. Kubli, M., Ulli-Beer S. (2015) Interdisciplinary Modelling of
   Energy Transition in Rural and Urban Systems, CISBAT 2015 - September 9-
   11, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Fuchs, G. and Hinderer, N. (2014) Situative Governance and Energy Transitions
   in a Spatial Context: Case Studies from Germany, in “Energy, Sustainability
   and Society”, 4, p. 16.
Gabrys, J. (2014) A Cosmopolitics of Energy: Diverging Materialities and Hesitat-
   ing Practices, in “Environment and Planning A”, 46 (9), pp. 2095-2109.
Geels, F.W. (2005) The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems: A
   Multi-Level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-Drawn Carriages
   to Automobiles (1860–1930), in “Technology Analysis & Strategic Manage-
   ment”, 17 (4), pp. 445-476.
Geels, F.W. (2010) Ontologies, Socio-Technical Transitions (to Sustainability),
   and the Multi-Level Perspective, in “Research Policy”, 39, pp. 495-510.
Göbel, M., Vogel, R. and Weber, C. (2013) Management Research on Reciproci-
   ty: A Review of the Literature, in “Business Research”, 6 (1), pp. 34-53.
Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Ox-
   ford, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goldblatt, D.L., Minsch, J., Flüeler, T. and Spreng, D. (2012) Introduction, in D.
   Spreng, T. Flüeler, D.L. Goldblatt and J. Minsch (eds), Tackling Long-Term
   Global Energy Problems: The Contribution of Social Science, Dordrecht,
   Springer, pp. 3-10.
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L. and Difiglio, C. (2000) Energy Efficiency and Con-
   sumption – The Rebound Effect – A Survey, in “Energy policy”, 28 (6-7), pp.
   389-401.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) The Population Ecology of Organizations,
   in “American Journal of Sociology”, 82 (5), pp. 929-964.
Hayward, R.D. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2007) How Competition Is Viewed Across
   Cultures. A Test of Four Theories, in “Cross-Cultural Research”, 41 (4), pp.
   364-395.
Kasperbauer, T.J. (2017) The Permissibility of Nudging for Sustainable Energy
   Consumption, in “Energy Policy”, 111, pp. 52-57.
Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (2018) Environmental Expertise as Group Belong-
   ing: Environmental Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies, in “Na-
   ture + Culture”, 13 (3), pp. 309-331.



                                                                             137
138                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

Löw, M. (2008) The Constitution of Space: The Structuration of Spaces through
    the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception, in “European Journal of Social
    Theory”, 11 (1), pp. 25-49.
Magnani, N. and Osti, G. (2016) Does Civil Society Matter? Challenges and
    Strategies of Grassroots Initiatives in Italy’s Energy Transition, in “Energy Re-
    search & Social Science”, 13, pp. 148-157.
Osti, G. (2012) Frames, Organisations, and Practices as Social Components of
    Energy, in “International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Soci-
    ologie”, 22 (3), pp. 412-428.
Osti, G. (2018) The Uncertain Games of Energy Transition in the Island of Sar-
    dinia (Italy), in “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 205, pp. 681-689.
Osti, G. (2019) Ludic Scopes for Environmental Crisis and Education, Nature
    and Culture, in “Nature and Culture”, 14 (2), pp. 107-118.
Pellizzoni, L. (ed.) (2011) Conflitti ambientali. Esperti, politica, istituzioni nelle
    controversie ecologiche, Bologna, il Mulino.
Pesch, U., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E. and Taebi, B. (2018) Energy Justice and Con-
    troversies: Formal and Informal Assessment in Energy Projects, in “Energy
    Policy”, 109, pp. 825-834.
Rutherford, J. and Coutard, O. (2014) Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Pro-
    cesses and Politics of Socio-Technical Change, in “Urban Studies”, 51 (7), pp.
    1353-1377.
Sacchelli, S., Garegnani, G., Geri, F., Grilli, G., Paletto, A., Zambelli, P., Ciolli,
    M. and Vettorato D. (2016) Trade-off between Photovoltaic Systems Installa-
    tion and Agricultural Practices on Arable Lands: An Environmental and So-
    cio-Economic Impact Analysis for Italy, in “Land Use Policy”, 56, pp. 90-99.
Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2008) Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable
    Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy, in
    “Technology analysis & strategic management”, 20 (5), pp. 537-554.
Shove, E. (2017) Energy and Social Practice: From Abstractions to Dynamic Pro-
    cesses, Complex Systems and Social Practices in Energy Transitions. In N..
    Labanca (ed.), Framing Energy Sustainability in the Time of Renewables,
    Cham, Switzerland, Springer, pp. 207-220.
Sovacool, B.K. (2016) The Political Ecology and Justice of Energy, in T. Van de
    Graaf (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy
    of Energy, New York, Palgrave, pp. 529-558.
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2014) Nudge. La spinta gentile. La nuova strate-
    gia per migliorare le nostre decisioni su denaro, salute, felicità, Milano, Feltri-
    nelli.
Tidwell, A.S.D. and Smith, J.M. (2015) Morals, Materials, and Technoscience:
    The Energy Security Imaginary in the United States, in “Science, Technology,
    & Human Values”, 40 (5), pp. 687-711.
Venier, S. and Palmieri, C. (2018) Informazione, comportamento, performance: la
    nuova frontiera per l’efficienza energetica, in “Management delle Utilities e
    delle Infrastrutture”, 2, pp. 42-48.
Giardullo et. al.                                                              139
Wagenaar, H. and Bartels, K. (2016) Relational Approaches to Policy Analysis:
   Knowing, Intervening and Transforming in a Precarious World, ECPR Gen-
   eral Conference, Prague, Charles University in Prague, 7-10 September.
Walker, G. and Cass, N. (2007) Carbon Reduction, ‘The Public’ and Renewable
   Energy: Engaging with Socio-Technical Configurations, in “Area”, 39 (4), pp.
   458-469.
Wylie, S.A., Jalbert, K., Dosemagen, S. and Ratto, M. (2014) Institutions for Civic
   Technoscience: How Critical Making Is Transforming Environmental Re-
   search, in “The Information Society”, 30 (2), pp. 116-126.
Yasunori, B., Walsh J.P. (2010) Embeddedness, Social Epistemology and Break-
   through Innovation: The Case of the Development of Statins, in “Research
   Policy”, 39 (4), pp. 511-522.



                                       ***

Thinking about the Differing Contributions of (Social) Psy-
chology and Sociology for Understanding Sociotechnical
Transitions Perspectives on Energy Supply and Use

Paula Bögel, Paul Upham and Paula Castro


Introduction: Socio-technical Transitions, Sociology and
(Social) Psychology

    Sociotechnical transitions thinking attributes our unsustainable devel-
opment trajectories to complex and enduring interconnections between
scientific and technological development, industry, markets, policy and
culture. All are said to co-evolve in a complex system of mutual and usu-
ally self-reinforcing processes (Kemp et al. 1998; Geels and Schot 2007).
There is some explicit discussion of ontology in (for brevity) the ‘transi-
tions’ literature on this complex process of co-evolution, but it is arguably
fair to say that this has rarely been a primary concern. Geels (2010) is a
notable exception, as the author discusses how the transitions literature
draws on social theory with a variety of ontologies, very often only in a
tacit way; and how MLP fits into this variety, given its heuristic, integra-
tive nature. More often than not, though, authors positioning themselves
within sociotechnical transitions frames are more concerned with specific
conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical aspects of their cases, than with
discussing underpinning assumptions about the nature of the social
world. Moreover, while the literature recognizes the importance and roles
of individual actors, the agency of those actors - their capacities to act and
the influences on those capacities - have been scarcely theorized (Bögel


                                                                              139
140                                                          Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

and Upham 2018). It would seem that relatively little has changed in this
regard since Genus and Coles (2008, p. 1442) observed that individual
actors are often critical to changes in the ‘rules’ that are assumed in struc-
turation accounts to pattern society. Geels et al. (2016) is one of the ex-
ceptions and we return to this in the last section; another recent contribu-
tion is Wittmayer et al. (2017), regarding actor roles; similarly, Fischer
and Newig (2016); none, though, are concerned with the subjective expe-
rience of actors and the relationship of this to transitions processes.
    In this context, the goal of this paper is to show lines for further de-
velopment – of how theoretical accounts from transition studies, sociolo-
gy and (social) psychology could be used, particularly in an interdiscipli-
nary way, to improve our understanding of the subjective experience of
individual actors and actor groups as an essential driver or barrier for sus-
tainability transitions. For this purpose, we first outline the different as-
sumptions characterizing the ontologies of sociology and (social) psychol-
ogy via-à-vis transition studies; these assumptions will be the basis to con-
tinue with the question of how to bridge those different approaches. The
focus for this purpose is on (social) psychological approaches and their
potential crossovers with sociology, particularly social practice theory
(SPT) and transition frameworks, as the role of psychology for under-
standing agency, and here particularly the role of subjective experience,
in transitions is our main concern in this Crossing Boundaries.

Sociology in the Sociotechnical Transitions Literature

    Sociotechnical transition researchers do acknowledge the role of sub-
jective human experience, but mainly from sociological perspectives,
which underlie the social foundations of transition frameworks (e.g.
MLP, see Geels 2002; or the Triple Embeddedness Framework, see Geels
2014). For prominent sociological accounts in transition studies see stud-
ies on the roles of meanings, interpretation, discourses and symbols
(Stedman, 2016) in transitions, understood from social perspectives, and
in particular studies on the role of social practices for transitions (Köhler
et al. 2019). In social practice theory, “routine human action is under-
stood as a product of collective social practices influenced as much by the
environment as it is by personal preferences or processes of deliberation
(Köhler et al. 2019, p. 729)”. Practices are thus a key unit of analysis.
With roots typically in Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of society as structured
and stratified in part by repeated and routinized practice, this work has
examined a range of practices with environmental and energy consump-
tion implications (Hand et al. 2005; Shove 2010a).
    While sociological or cultural accounts of subjectively-experienced
phenomena place their focus external to the individual in terms of pro-
cesses, psychology emphasises individual-level characteristics and pro-
cesses. These processes may have a social dimension (e.g. the influence of
social norms), but whereas: “sociologists generally devote their efforts to
Giardullo et. al.                                                          141
identifying which social phenomena have effects on individuals” ... “psy-
chologists generally specialize in identifying the mechanisms or processes
through which social phenomena have their effect on individuals” (Thoits
1995, p. 1231).

Psychology in the Sociotechnical Transitions Literature

    A recent literature review by Bögel and Upham (2018) shows the po-
tential of (social) psychological approaches for improving our under-
standing of agency in transitions; but it also highlights the little use that
sociotechnical transitions theory has made of psychology to date. The re-
view shows that the primary use of psychology in this literature has been
in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Of the large varie-
ty of psychological perspectives and theories available, only six main the-
oretical perspectives have been deployed in the sociotechnical transitions
literature, namely (i) rational and mindful decision making, with the The-
ory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1991, 2011) being the most prominent
approach and probably among the psychological theories most used in
transition studies in general; (ii) habitualized behaviour, mainly studies
from SPT perspectives and with new approaches emerging from identity
theories; (iii) the role of norms, with e.g. norm-based approaches such as
Stern’s Value-Belief-Norm Theory (for an overview see Jackson 2005) be-
ing quite prominent in environmental psychology but rarely used in tran-
sition studies (with the Energy Cultures Framework by Stephenson et al.
2015 being an exception but quite differently premised); (iv) societal level
theories, mainly represented by Social Representations Theory (SRT;
Moscovici 2000); (v) place attachment, including place identity approach-
es; and (vi) information and persuasion approaches. Concerning social
practice theory, it should be noted that while sociological in origin, as
conceived by Bourdieu (1984) SPT has a social psychological component
in terms of individuals’ habitus and dispositions, offering cross-over po-
tential between psychological and sociological perspectives.
    Indeed, the meaning of the “social” in social psychology has devel-
oped over the years in two main directions, each producing a different
view of what social psychology is and should be (Rijsman and Stroebe
1989; Rizzoli et al. 2018). In the first direction, the social is treated as an
enveloping context and/or an applied topic, and the task of psycho-social
research is to target universal individual-level processes: fundamental
needs, core motivations, traits, and information processing capacities.
These are seen as universal-individual-natural processes that often hap-
pen in social contexts and with social stimuli. An example of such a posi-
tion is the suggestion that a “social” social psychology can be achieved by
maintaining theorizations focused on the individual level, provided that
group/societal processes are included in the research designs as pertain-
ing to context (Taylor and Brown 1979). In other words, here the pro-



                                                                           141
142                                                         Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

cesses to be studied are conceptualized at an individual level, whereas the
topics analysed are social, and/or of social relevance (Rizzoli et al. 2018).
    According to the second position, the social is neither an applied top-
ic, nor an enveloping context (Batel et al. 2016; Batel and Castro 2018);
the social is viewed as constitutive of the psychological, and the focus is
on how meaning and action emerge from various (Subject-Other-Object)
relations (Moscovici 1972). In this view, there is no stark distinction be-
tween the social and the individual (Greenwood 2014; Moscovici 1988;
Reicher 2004): context and relations are not external/enveloping variables
and for developing theories and research questions, social psychology
needs to consider how social and historical facts constitute psychological
subjects, relations and contexts (Gergen 1973). Many of the questions
posed by this second direction are concerned with how psycho-social
processes - such as social identification, communication, representation -
are involved with how change and stability are both achieved and legiti-
mated in societies (Castro and Mouro 2016). It is naturally the second
line of research that lends itself more closely to integration with societal-
level sociological and system-level transition studies frameworks.

Understandings of Agency and Action: Socio-Psychological
Approaches and Their Implications for Energy Transitions

    In this section, we consider two theoretical perspectives from the se-
cond line of social psychological research, namely SRT and identity ap-
proaches, for studying subjective aspects of agency in transitions. We do
so on the premise that these perspectives: (i) offer particular insights into
the behaviours and practices that structure societal relationships with
technologies and systems of provision; and (ii) are amenable to a degree
of integration or meaningful juxtaposition with the high-level process
concepts of sociotechnical transitions thinking, to date focused more on
collective than individual processes and experience. As empirical illustra-
tion of how the different perspectives complement each other (with con-
nections to SPT), we take the case of energy supply and demand. While
there are different policy implications deriving from the disciplinary on-
tologies (see e.g. Shove 2010b), analysts from different ontologies agree
on the need for behaviour change as one characteristic of, or precondi-
tion for, a sustainable energy system. This agreement and the large variety
of studies on this topic emerging from all these perspectives, including
SPT, make energy supply and demand a suitable Boundary Object (Star
and Griesemer 1989) to illustrate the theoretical perspectives, their dif-
ferences but also possible points of connections.

Social representations theory (SRT)

  SRT (Moscovici 1988) is a major social psychological theory about
meaning-making and communication. It posits that social representations
Giardullo et. al.                                                        143
have two functions. First, they conventionalise new concepts and give
them a recognizable and common form, thus enhancing communication
and coordination within a group: “These conventions enable us to know
what stands for what” (Moscovici 2000, p. 22). Second, representations
prescribe ways of thinking about topics: “they are forced upon us, trans-
mitted, and are the product of a whole sequence of elaborations and of
changes which occur in the course of time and are the achievement of
successive generations” (Moscovici 2000, p. 24). Nevertheless, SRT also
emphasizes how social representations change through interaction and
communication, and as the social groups through which they travel
change, also how new ideas, which in turn are anchored to older repre-
sentations, constantly emerge from these processes and relations. In other
words, SRT highlights how ‘all encounters with the world are mediated
through relationships’ with other social beings (Castro and Batel 2008, p.
479) and hence how meanings are always relational and co-constructed
(see Howarth 2006). This is often referred to as representations emerging
from Ego-Alter relations, the site where meaning is not just constructed
but also transformed. Moreover, SRT highlights also that these relations
happen in a culture and are constrained by its institutions, and therefore
that understanding meaning making requires taking into account the
three dimensions of culture, context, and interaction, and acknowledging
that these are not external variables (Batel et al. 2016; Castro 2015).
    There is work drawing from SRT for examining energy representa-
tions and energy controversies. The approach has informed a theorization
of local resistance to the construction of renewable energy infrastructures
that views it as place-protective, arising from interpretations of the struc-
tures – through a community’s shared representations and communica-
tions – as threats to place and to people-place relations (Devine-Wright
2009). Further, empirical analysis has shown how representations of the
countryside or seaside are used by residents to make sense - and refuse –
certain energy infrastructures (Devine-Wright and Howes 2010; Batel et
al. 2015), or for demonstrating how the representations of energy in Ital-
ian political debates and newspaper articles bear witness to the preva-
lence of economic approaches and a view of citizens as needing to stay
passive (Sarrica et al. 2014). Also, some work shows – through analyses of
re-convened group sessions with citizens from two French communities
where smart meters were first installed - how the shared elaboration in
the groups led participants to consider more collectively-oriented ap-
proaches and goals to make sense of the meters (Bertoldo et al. 2015).

Identity theories

    Two lines of identity-approaches will be considered here: (i) theoreti-
cal perspectives for the role of symbolic meaning for personal and social
identity, offering crossovers to SRT and (ii) social identity theory. Regard-
ing the first, namely meaning and identity, this perspective can be traced


                                                                         143
144                                                         Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

at least to Mead (1956), who argued for a socially constructed nature of
the self and the associated role of communication: “a self can arise only
where there is a social process within which this self has its initiation. It
[the sense of self] arises within this process” (Mead 1956, p. 42). This
basic idea has continued through to contemporary accounts, in which
material artefacts are assumed to have symbolic meaning derived through
social negotiation and thence incorporated into a sense of self, with im-
plications for behaviour, including consumptive behaviour (Jackson
2005) and energy demand. The meaning and the construction of meaning
of these material goods is posited by Elliott and Wattanasuwan (1998) as
shaped by three processes: lived experience, mediated experience and
discursive elaboration. Lived experience relates to people’s experience
with artefacts, e.g. new energy technologies in their homes. Mediated ex-
perience relates to the presentation of symbolic resources in multiple
forms of media, for example of different renewable energies. The process
of discursive elaboration describes the negotiating of the symbolic mean-
ing and the self with relevant others, e.g. friends, family and colleagues.
Concerning the role of symbolic meaning and identity for energy demand
and supply, Nye et al. (2010) suggest research focusing on social con-
struction of identity and consumption may be a promising way to study
habitualized behaviour; the basic assumption being that identity and life-
style aspects are key drivers of energy behaviour. Nye et al. (2010) men-
tion the example of air conditioning as a symbol of modern life. Likewise,
lighting can be interpreted as a symbol for prosperity. While the authors
focus in their suggestions on everyday energy demand, the role of symbol-
ic meaning and identity might also be extended to acceptance studies, of-
fering also potentials of crossovers between SRT and symbolic meaning
and identity-approaches, discussed in more detail in the following sec-
tion.
    The second theoretical perspective, namely Social identity theories
view identity as an interplay of societal and individual processes, despite
being primarily social psychological in nature. An example is the ap-
proach of Schmid et al. (2011), which encompasses Social Identity Theo-
ry and Self-Categorization Theory, and assumes that individuals apply
distinct social categories to understand their social world, such as gender
or professional categories. These categorizations create in-groups and
out-groups, which in turn influence individual (and group) attitudes and
behaviours. In this respect, social identity theory has been described as
being “at the heart of social psychological theories” (Schmid et al. 2011,
p. 211) and is applicable to a wide range of social contexts and processes.
Such contexts include institutions, organisations, firms, governments and
consumers in aggregate or as sub-groups. With regard to energy demand
and supply, individualistic psychological approaches have been in the fo-
cus of research but recently authors have started to study the role of so-
cial identity for both (i) household energy and (ii) the growth of commu-
nity energy (or other social movements), addressing the changing role of
Giardullo et. al.                                                        145
consumers (towards prosumers) in energy systems. Concerning (i),
Mäkivierikko et al. (2019) build on both the Theory of Planned Behav-
iour and Social Identity (see also Fielding et al. 2008) and examine the
influence of social identity among neighbours on energy demand reduc-
tion. Concerning (ii), previous studies have recently started to discuss the
role of identity for the development of social movements in general – ei-
ther as a driver or barrier for social diffusion – (Seyfang and Haxeltine
2012) - and community energy in particular (e.g. Pohlmann and Colell
2017).

Theoretical Crossovers between SRT, Identity Approaches
and SPT

    In the following, we discuss possibilities for theoretical crossovers be-
tween SRT and identity theories as well as their potential cross-overs with
SPT, with a separate discourse on the social psychological elements of
SPT per se; the overall purpose is a richer understanding and theorisation
of actor-level experience in sociotechnical transitions processes. We start
with discussing potential crossovers between the social psychological ac-
counts presented here, namely SRT and identity-approaches. There are
clearly many points of connection between the psychosocial approaches
considered here. At the core of these connections is the construction of
meaning, or sense-making, which has implications for identity and action,
practice or behaviour. In the previous section, we already mentioned the
possible extension of approaches on the symbolic meaning and identity to
acceptance studies and the potential that this offers for crossovers with
SRT. In fact, Elliott and Wattanasuwan (1998) some 20 years ago sug-
gested to study the connections between the concept of social representa-
tions and their theoretical model on the construction of meaning and
identity with regard to social-symbolism: “The concept of Social Repre-
sentations could also be adopted to explore the socially shared meanings
of consumption.” Likewise, Castro (2003), citing Parker (1998) identifies
points of connection between the two approaches: "the social psychologi-
cal theory of social representations was part of a sustained attempt by the
discipline to develop fully social explanations of identity and shared
knowledge.” This line of research could examine the role of social repre-
sentation in relation to identity-processes, in turn with implications for
further development of social representations, e.g. taking into account the
findings on the role of social identities for joining community energy ini-
tiatives, or for the study of groups with contrasting social representations
as often found in energy controversies. Such a line of research would take
into account the ways in which action is shaped by in-group and out-
group formation, in which social representations of all types of phenome-
na play a role. Vis-à-vis SPT, this would offer the possibility of studying
individuals as agents of transitions rather than as passive objects; which


                                                                         145
146                                                           Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

would be a key step forward given that a key critique to SPT approaches
is the rather passive role that SPT ascribes to individuals in transitions.
Further cross-overs between SRT and SPT in particular (see also Batel
and Castro 2016) could start at the obvious insight that we inhabit a ma-
terial world as well as an ideational one. Materiality and embodiment are
where SPT can complement SRT, to more fully conceptualise and exam-
ine the roles of technologies, infrastructures and also biophysical systems
involving non-human actors (Batel et al. 2016). In turn, SRT can add to
SPT in at least two ways. First, by conceptualizing people as agentive in
bringing about social change, and second by offering an account of the
role of Self-Other and power relations in allowing, constraining, and/or
enabling (Batel et al. 2016). In addition, SRT helps to understand specifi-
cally how new scientific knowledge is appropriated and becomes used as
common sense in everyday lives. As such, it helps examine cultural and
techno-scientific change and how this is appropriated in contemporary
heterogeneous public spheres (Batel et al. 2016). Overall, SRT and identi-
ty-approaches may complement SPT by adding psychological dimensions
without being overly-individualistic in the resulting account.

Conclusions and Further Research

    Going forward, the previous section has set out general and specific
options for further research on subjective experience in relation to soci-
otechnical transitions processes. A more extended range of suggestions as
regards social psychological perspectives and also research design for
multi-level work is given in Upham et al. (2019). We are only just at the
beginning of the process of making further, close connections, arguably in
part because disciplinary affiliations have hindered interest in making
such connections (Bögel and Upham 2018). Cases of sociotechnical
change are so complex and multi-layered that it is unlikely that we can
neatly map a differentiated correspondence or suitability of different so-
cial psychological (or more broadly, psychosocial) theories, perspectives
and empiric research for connection to core sociotechnical concepts and
processes features - as, for example, represented in the MLP framework
(Geels 2002), or in idealised typologies of sociotechnical change (Geels
and Schot 2007; Geels et al. 2016). Rather, it is more plausible that psy-
chosocial perspectives can be applied on a case by case basis, while con-
sidering the possibilities for generalisation, to help give a fuller account of
the processes involved.
    This will be facilitated where agents are not only acknowledged as im-
portant but are given a more central role. The local enactment approach
of Geels et al. (2016) is one such starting point, as is earlier work to which
the authors refer (Geels 2004; Geels and Schot 2010). All of the latter
emphasise the roles of individual actors and social groups in competing
and collaborating to shape relevant social rules and institutions. While
Giardullo et. al.                                                             147
Geels and Schot (2010) refer to the option of analysing at different levels
of ‘granularity’ (resolution or scale), they take the view that case-specific
scale analysis may be less useful for the conceptualisation of transition
pathways, which aggregate over time. We acknowledge that theoretical or
conceptual connections between processes at very different scales are in-
evitably indirect, highly mediated and moderated as well as probably dif-
ficult to be definitive about tracing causal processes. Adding a psychoso-
cial layer of analysis adds to the challenge. Yet these issues are inherent to
multi-level analysis. Moreover, psychosocial processes are generally not
stochastic: people are for the most part consistent and rule-following,
seeking stability. These processes should be amenable to conceptual and
theoretical connection to other conceptions and theories of sociotechnical
change at different scales. What is at issue is the degree of conceptual or
theoretical integration that is possible, and this is largely a function of the
ontologies underlying particular concepts - hence our starting point. We
hope that this short paper encourages further work along these lines.


     References
Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned Behaviour, in “Organizational behavior
   and human decision processes”, 50 (2), pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2011) The Theory of Planned Behavior: Reactions and Reflections, in
   “Psychology & Health”, 26, pp. 1113-1127.
Batel, S. (2012) Re-presenting (and) Cognitive Polyphasia, in “Papers Soc. Repre-
   sentations”, 21, pp. 10-15
Batel, S. and Devine-Wright, P. (2015) Towards a Better Understanding of Peo-
   ple’s Responses to Renewable Energy Technologies: Insights from Social Rep-
   resentations Theory, in “Public Understanding of Science”, 24 (3), pp. 311-
   325.
Batel, S., Castro, P., Devine-Wright, P. and Howarth, C. (2016) Developing a
   Critical Agenda to Understand Pro-Environmental Actions: Contributions
   from Social Representations and Social Practices Theories, in “Wiley Interdis-
   ciplinary Reviews: Climate Change”, 7, pp. 727-745.
Batel, S. and Castro, P. (2018) Reopening the Dialogue between the Theory of
   Social Representations and Discursive Psychology for Examining the Con-
   struction and Transformation of Meaning in Discourse and Communication,
   in “British Journal of Social Psychology”, 57 (4), pp. 732-753.
Bertoldo, R., Poumadere, M., and Rodrigues, L. (2015) When Meters Start to
   Talk: The Public’s Encounter with Smart Meters in France, in “Energy Re-
   search and Social Science”, 9, pp. 146-156
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-
   versity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of taste, Har-
   vard, Harvard University Press.



                                                                             147
148                                                                  Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

Bögel, P.M. and Upham, P. (2018) The Role of Psychology in the Sociotechnical
    Transitions Literature: A Review and Discussion in Relation to Consumption
    and Technology Acceptance, in “Environmental Innovation and Societal
    Transitions”, 28, pp. 122-136.
Castro, P. (2003) Dialogues in social psychology, or how new are new ideas, In
    Lazlo, J. and Wagner, W. (eds.), Theories and controversies in societal psy-
    chology, Uj Manfatum, pp. 32-54.
Castro P. and Batel S. (2008) Social Representation, Change and Resistance: On
    the Difficulties of Generalizing New Norms, in “Cultural Psychology”, 14,
    pp. 475-497.
Castro, P. (2015) The approach of social representations to sustainability: Re-
    searching time, institution, conflict and communication, in Sammut, G., An-
    dreouli E., Gaskell, G. and Valsiner, J. (eds.) Handbook of Social Represen-
    tations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Castro, P. and Mouro, C. (2016) ‘Imagining Ourselves’ as Participating Publics:
    An Example from Biodiversity Conservation, in “Public Understanding of
    Science”, 25 (7) pp. 858-872.
Devine-Wright, P. (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism. The Role of Place Attachment
    and Place Identity in Explaining Place-Protective Action, in “Journal of
    Community- Applied Social Psychology”, 19 (6), pp. 426-441.
Devine-Wright, P., Howes, Y. (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the
    protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study, in “Journal
    of Environmental Psychology”, 30 (3), pp. 271-280.
Elliott, R., Wattanasuwan K. (1998) Consumption and the symbolic project of the
    self, in “European Advances in Consumer Research”, 3, pp. 17-20.
Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M. and Hogg, M.A. (2008) Integrating social
    identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to
    engage in sustainable agricultural practices, in “British Journal of Social Psy-
    chology”, 47 (1), pp. 23-48.
Fischer, L.B., and Newig, J. (2016) Importance of actors and agency in sustaina-
    bility transitions: a systematic exploration of the literature, in “Sustainability”,
    8 (5), p. 476.
Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro-
    cesses. A multi-level perspective and a case-study, in “Research Policy”, 31,
    pp. 1257-1274.
Geels, F.W. (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical sys-
    tems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional
    theory, in “Research Policy”, 33 (6-7), pp. 897-920.
Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways,
    in “Research Policy”, 36 (3), pp. 399-417.
Geels, F.W. and Schot, J. (2010) Reflections, Process theory, causality and narra-
    tive Explanation. In Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J., Transitions to Sustain-
    able Development: New Directions in the Study of Long-Term Transforma-
    tive Change, pp. 93-104.
Geels, F.W. (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and
    the multi-level perspective, in “Research Policy”, 39 (4), pp. 495-510.
Giardullo et. al.                                                                149
Geels, F.W. (2014) Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and
    their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness
    Framework, in “Research Policy”, 43 (2), pp. 261-277.
Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch,
    M. and Wassermann, S. (2016) The enactment of socio-technical transition
    pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of
    the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014), in “Re-
    search Policy”, 45, pp. 896-913.
Genus, A. and Coles, A.M. (2008) Rethinking the multi-level perspective of tech-
    nological transitions, in “Research Policy”, 37(9), pp. 1436-1445.
Gergen, K. J. (1973) Social psychology as history, in “Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology”, 26 (2), pp. 309-320.
Greenwood, J.D. (2014) “The social in social psychology”, in “Social and Person-
    ality Psychology Compass”, 8 (7), pp. 303-313.
Hand, M., Shove, E. and Southerton, D. (2005) Explaining Showering: a Discus-
    sion of the Material, Conventional, and Temporal Dimensions of Practice, in
    “Sociological Research Online”, 10 (2), pp. 1-13.
Howarth, C. (2006) A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the crit-
    ical potential of social representations theory, in “British Journal of Social
    Psychology”, 45, pp. 65-86.
Jackson, T. (2005) Motivating sustainable consumption, A review of evidence on
    consumer behaviour and behavioural change. A report to the Sustainable De-
    velopment Research Network Online. Available online at http://
    www.sustainblelifestyles.ac.uk/sites/default/files/motivating_sc_final.pdf
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R. (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through
    processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, in
    “Technology Analysis & Strategic Management”, 10 (2), pp. 175-198.
Klein, J.T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdis-
    ciplinarities, University Press of Virginia.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A. and
    Fünfschilling, L. (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state
    of the art and future directions, in “Environmental Innovation and Societal
    Transitions”, 31, pp. 1-31.
Mead, G. (1956) The problem of society – How we become selves. In G. Mead
    (ed.), Georg Herbert Mead on Social Psychology, Chicago, University of Chi-
    cago Press, pp. 19-42.
Mäkivierikko, A., Bögel, P., Giersiepen, A.N., Shahrokni, H., Kordas, O. (2019)
    Exploring the viability of a local social network for creating persistently en-
    gaging energy feedback and human well-being, in “Journal of Cleaner Pro-
    duction”, 224, pp. 789-801.
Moscovici, S. (1972) Society and theory in social psychology, in Israel and H.
    Tajfel, H. (eds.), The context of social psychology. A critical assessment, Lon-
    don, Academic Press, pp. 17-68.
Moscovici, S. (1988) Notes towards a description of social representations, in
    “European Journal of Social Psychology”, 18, pp. 211-250.
Moscovici, S. (2000), Social Representations, Cambridge, Polity.


                                                                                149
150                                                               Tecnoscienza - 10 (2)

Nye, M., Whitmarsh, L. and Foxon, T. (2010) Sociopsychological perspectives on
    the active roles of domestic actors in transition to a lower carbon electricity
    economy, in “Environment and Planning A”, 42 (3), pp. 697-714.
Parker, I. (1998) Psychoanalytic culture: psychoanalitic discourse in western soci-
    ety, London, Sage Publications
Pohlmann, A. and Colell, A. (2017) Grounding community energy: A situational
    analysis approach to an international comparison, available at https://
    ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/54fddf7b-2d03-4769-8830-208787abe8e8.
    pdf
Reicher, S. (2004) The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and
    change, in “Political Psychology”, 25 (6), pp. 921-945.
Rijsman, J. and Stroebe, W. (1989) The two social psychologies or whatever hap-
    pened to the crisis?, in “European Journal of Social Psychology”, 19 (5), pp.
    339-343.
Rizzoli, V., Castro, P., Tuzzi, A. and Contarello, A. (2018) Probing the history of
    social psychology, exploring diversity and views of the social: Publication
    trends in the European Journal of Social Psychology from 1971 to 2016, in
    “European Journal of Social Psychology”, 49 (4), pp. 671-687.
Sarrica, M., Brondi, S. and Cottone, P.F. (2014) Italian views on sustainable en-
    ergy: Trends in the representations of energy, energy system, and user, 2009–
    2011, in “Nature and Culture”, 9 (2), pp. 122-145
Schmid, K., Howstone, M. and Al Ramiah, A. (2011) Self-Categorization and So-
    cial Identification: Making Sense of Us and Them, in Chadee, D., Theories in
    Social Psychology, Hopoken, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 211-231.
Seyfang, G. and Haxeltine, A. (2012) Growing grassroots innovations. Exploring
    the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transi-
    tions, in “Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy”, 30 (3), pp.
    381-400.
Shove, E. (2010a) Sociology in a Changing Climate, in “Sociological Research
    Online”, 15 (3), pp. 1-3.
Shove, E. (2010b) Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
    change, in “Environment and Planning A”, 42, pp. 1273-1285.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations' and
    boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Ver-
    tebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19 (3), pp. 387-420
Stedman, R.C. (2016) Subjectivity and social-ecological systems. A rigidity trap
    (and sense of place as a way out), in “Sustainability Science”, 11 (6), pp. 891-
    901.
Stephenson, J., Hopkins, D. and Doering, A. (2015) Conceptualizing transport
    transitions. Energy Cultures as an organizing framework, in “Wiley Interdis-
    ciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment”, 4 (4), pp. 354-364.
Taylor, D. M., and Brown, R. J. (1979), Towards a more social psychology?, in
    “British Journal of Clinical Psychology”, 18 (2), pp.173-180.
Thoits, P.A. (2003) Personal agency in the accumulation of multiple role-
    identities, in Burke, P. J., Owens, T. J., Serpe, R. T. and Thoits, P.A. (eds.),
Giardullo et. al.                                                              151
   Advances in Identity Theory and Research, New York, Kluwer Academ-
   ic/Plenum, pp. 179-194.
Wittmayer, J.M. Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F. and Loorbach, D. (2017) Actor
   roles in transition: Insights from sociological perspectives, in “Environmental
   Innovation and Societal Transitions”, 24, pp. 45-56.




    1
      For a review of the different approaches to SPT and its theoretical develop-
ment, see Postill (2010). There is a very active community of scholars dealing with
the study of practices through a wide array of methodological approaches. As Hui
and Schäfer declare in the blog PracticeTheoryMethodologies, there is no unique
perspective on the study of social practices, but rather “diverse approaches and
conceptual vocabularies within the broad ‘family’ of theories, in contrast to indi-
vidualist or normativist positions” (https://practicetheorymethodologies.word
press.com/about/ retrieved on October 17, 2019). For this reason, it may be more
appropriate to talk of “theories”, rather than “theory”.
    2
      I am grateful to Paolo Volontè for discussion at the seminar ‘META’,
Politecnico di Milano (5 June 2018), from which this paper is drawn.




                                                                              151
