Tackling climate change through community

Life in 'the real world' post MBA...

2010-10-18T12:00:00.000+01:00

Hello everybody.

The following article was included in one of the numerous news lists that I subscribe to. It sets out the post-MBA trajectories of a number of graduates of EDF's (that's the US environmental NGO the Environmental Defense Fund, not the French power company!) Climate Corps fellowships that "embeds top MBA students in leading companies to make the business case for energy efficiency." The MBA students they place are, on the whole, following a traditional MBA program so carbon savings / energy efficiency is a sideline and not a core part of their studies.

Life in the Real World after EDF Climate Corps

10:10's climate change film - mainstream sustainability messaging at its worst?

2010-10-04T13:20:00.000+01:00

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this film, nor what the 10:10 board who commissioned it were thinking when they came up with the idea in the first place. Actually, that's not strictly true. I think the film does little or nothing to engage people with climate change issues, and shows a fairly amazing level of naivete from an organisation that had, up to this point, been developing an interesting social marketing campaign.

If all publicity is good publicity then if nothing else the film has helped to raise the profile of 10:10. But has it/will it lead to more people becoming involved in the campaign? In fact can this sort of campaign ever be that effective? I'm not so sure they can. The mainstream approaches to tackling climate change that assume if we can only create the right message or signal then those dodgy high carbon emitting wasters will fall into line and change their lightbulbs have been shown time and again to be ineffective. And one thing I'm fairly certain of is that the message presented in the 10:10 film won't do much to change that situation!

Green business...

2010-04-27T10:36:00.000+01:00

Long time, no blog...and I've got no excuses either apart from the usual 'I've been so busy!' variety that are actually just a hollow excuse for not posting anything.

Anyway, moving on...here's an interesting piece on the difficulties associated with greening the workplace - a topical article as most of us spend so much of our time at work and don't necessarily consider our (environmental) behaviour whilst sat at our desk...

The article is from Saturday's Guardian and is available here...

Happy reading!

What does social practice theory offer the work I'm doing?

2010-01-27T10:00:00.001Z

I recently had an interesting email exchange with Tom Hargreaves, one of my supervisors here at UEA, regarding the role of social practice theory. For those uninitiated into the world of practice, a very brief synopsis (taken from Reckwitz) is as follows:

“A ‘practice’...is a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge. A practice... forms so to speak a ‘block’ whose existence necessarily depends on the existence and specific interconnectedness of these elements”.

A practice is therefore a set of interconnected heterogeneous elements, and artefacts are included as elements in the constitution of practices. As Reckwitz argues: “Carrying out a practice very often means using particular things in a certain way. It might sound trivial to stress that in order to play football we need a ball and goals as indispensable ‘resources’... but it is not”.

In effect, the focus becomes the practice itself rather than the practitioner (or agent in agency-structure terms). It is in the act of doing the practice itself that the potential for environmentally damaging outcomes to occur appears...

Right, brief summary over, here's the exchange we had....

-------------------------------------------

Q. In practice theory terms, what is being changed if you switch to low-energy light bulbs? Is it the ‘stuff’ (see Shove) of the practice, or the practice itself?

A. (from TH) From the householders perspective it'd definitely be the stuff of practice that changed in this instance, although I'd possibly question whether or not there is such a thing as a 'lighting practice' in the first place. Maybe instead it's a sub-practice of a broader practice of 'indoor comfort' which light (from candles, electric lamps, windows etc) contributes to - a tricky one to unpick I'd have thought though.

It is indeed hard to say when a practice has changed - just changing the stuff of practice, but leaving the skills and images intact doesn't seem like much of a change to me...but, maybe if change to the stuff of practice was to begin to influence images and skills a change might be on the cards - i.e. if low energy bulbs were installed for envtl reasons, this MIGHT lead to a change in the meaning of the practice (i.e. indoor comfort shouldn't damage the envt) which, in turn, could lead to a change in the skills (i.e. people MIGHT try using lights less). Hobson's (2006) work on 'techno-ethics' (how objects carry ethics) is maybe worth a look here, although it's not couched in practice theoretical terms...

------------------------------

Q. Practice theory does seem to suffer from the 'what IS the practice' problem - i.e. how you define and identify what the practice actually is...I know that is acknowledged in the literature, but it does seem a problem for looking at environmental issues from a practice perspective as so much practice has some environmentally negative outcomes...do we try to change them one by one or see them as a whole and try to instil (although I'm not sure how) an environmental ethic at a higher level?

And one more point/question - what is to stop the concept of communities of practice being extended to those beyond the traditional organisations such as workplaces that it has been applied to? For example Wenger's modes of belonging belongs in his community of practice approach but why restrict it to learning processes in workplaces - can't they be applied to a much broader range of 'communities' engaged in a much broader range of practices?

A. (TH reply) Your first question - the best answer to the 'what IS practice' question, I think, is that you can only work this out phenomenologically i.e. the first question is 'whose practice?' - once you've identified a practitioner (or community thereof), you can then start to work out what a practice is by asking them.

So, when it comes to 'looking at environmental issues from a practice perspective' we then have a whole load of different questions. First, if we're taking the householders perspective then we'll probably find in most cases that environmental issues don't, apparently, have anything to do with practice whatsoever. If, on the other hand, we're looking at practice from the perspective of an environmental NGO (for example) then we're analysing practice in quite a different way to start with. Remember, the first rule of practice theory is to start from what it is people are DOING, not what (we think) they're thinking - if you take this rule seriously then, in most cases, irrespective of the environmental outcomes, practice has next to nothing to do with the environment.

Taking this into account, when we then think about changing practices, and whether we do this one by one or at a higher level, the first thing we have to ask is CAN we change practices intentionally? There are some major challenges here. Practices change and evolve of their own accord all the time. Attempts to change practices in particular directions often don't work at all, and even when they do they may have unintended (and unpredictable) effects that may undo any of the good intentions behind the change. Some of Arie Rip's work on reflexive governance is interesting here - the question really is, is it possible to get outside the system we're all a part of? And if not, how can we intentionally steer something when we've no idea in what direction we're headed? This is the key point made in the CAUTION! Transitions ahead paper by Shove and Walker. So, when it comes to 'instilling an environmental ethic at a higher level', we have to use a very different and much broader set of criteria to judge the 'success' of such an initiative, we also have to ask which practitioners of which practices are trying to instil it, and upon whom?

Not sure if that makes any sense at all - basically, practice theorists question the very concept of individual agency (individuals are 'carriers' of practice i.e. parts of practices) so the idea of intentionally effecting change is problematic...

Q. Is there not also an issue with practice theory that it offers an interesting analysis of what practice is now but not what could it could be? I guess that's the whole point about evolving practice, but if 'we' are trying to encourage sustainable lifestyles that are made up of evolving practices, how can a practice theory perspective be anything other than descriptive rather than prescriptive?

A. (TH reply) I don't think a practice theory perspective CAN be prescriptive and, to some extent, that's part of the point. Practice theorists are at pains to point out the naivete of previous attempts to impose narrow imperatives on social life. Whether or not that renders practice theory solely descriptive is a different question. Latour (not a practice theorist really, but one of its forefathers) suggests that description is all we can have anyway, that explanation is simply description at another level. So, in this view, there's nothing wrong with description. Taking this further, I would suggest that prior attempts to 'explain' social life by referring to individual attitudes, values, beliefs etc and to contextual 'barriers' and such like and whacking them into linear and predictive models, fundamentally ignore large sections of the object (social life and behaviour) they're trying to explain. In this respect, although they are purportedly 'explanatory' (i.e. they have cause-effect programmed into them), in actual fact they 'explain' next to nothing. That practice theory makes 'explanation' harder to come by should therefore be seen, I'd argue, as one of its strengths rather than a weakness and, if you look at previous empirical studies (such as Shove's on nordic walking, or anything in her 3 Cs book) it's hard to deny that they do offer more encompassing 'explanations' of social phenomena than previous narrow attempts. They are, however, all historical, 'explaining' what has already happened...so, if by 'explanation' you actually mean 'predictive'...well now, then we're onto a whole new territory and this is, for me, where Flyvbjerg's work in MSSM becomes interesting - take a look at the CSERGE working paper I've just written for my thoughts on this (it's on the CSERGE website here).

RB reply: Thanks for that...I shall leave my queries for now as I feel your answers have provided quite enough food for thought at present!

Although I will make one point - predicting the future is, naturally, full of uncertainties...ergo, anything predictive or prescriptive is full of uncertainties too, and taking a small sideways step into physical science, is of course one of the key challenges of climate change science itself and is the space where sceptics run free, using uncertainty to justify business as usual economic policies which in turn brings us back into the social and makes encouraging behavioural change in a world of uncertainty very difficult...so what is one to do??

TH reply: What, indeed, is one to do...

Flyvbjerg (in Making Social Science Matter - see review here) argues that the natural/physical sciences can predict things (to an extent) because the natural/physical world doesn't 'answer back'. By contrast, the social sciences can't make universal, context-independent predictions (in the same way as the natural sciences) because social life is fundamentally dependent on context and in order to make universal predictions, context would have to be ignored (he goes on about this at great length and with much greater eloquence than I can)...so, if prediction in the social sciences is out of the question (and I'm inclined to agree that it is, certainly beyond extremely narrowly defined parameters in which case prediction would seem pointless), what indeed can we do? Here Flyvbjerg offers a fairly simple but also quite profound answer - the role of the social sciences is to help real life communities/individuals to understand and confront the large scale value-rational questions that they face. This demands asking questions like 'where are we going?', 'is this desirable?' who wins and who loses?' and 'what should we do about it?' This may not lead to predictions, but it certainly sounds like a much more useful form of social science than one that pretends prediction is possible and is then left looking rather rubbish when they inevitably fail to materialise.

--------------------------------------------------

And I guess my question is, where should we look to find ways of encouraging change? If practice theory suggests that practices simply evolve and it is naive to imagine we can deliberately alter them where does that leave the work that I'm doing? I choose, therefore, to cling to the 'illusion of agency' that Rip speaks of which Shove suggests is enough to encourage us to continue researching how practices evolve in 'the working expectation that a difference can be made even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary'.

Shaping social norms – can ‘community’ act as an instrument of change to encourage environmental citizenship?

2009-12-04T16:48:00.000Z

It's Friday afternoon and I'm having an internal debate with myself (note to self: get out more) about what it is exactly that I'm trying to achieve with my research, and whilst it might not seem like much of an output at the moment, here are a few bullet points briefly summarising my thoughts:

Shaping social norms – can ‘community’ act as an instrument of change to encourage environmental citizenship?

Individuals exist within multiple instances and elements of ‘community’ across multiple social networks - e.g. work, family, clubs, neighbourhood associations etc...
bonding and bridging social capital within those communities can act as a means of encouraging change
power within the community can be utilised (consciously or sub-consciously) as a means of top-down distilling/encouraging of adoption of new social norms (think of Scandinavian countries…)
can combine to encourage pro-environmental behavioural change across all sectors of society including Defra's ‘honestly disengaged’ through internalising of new social norms as individuals strive to conform...

Will I still think this next week? Will I still be sat at my desk talking to myself?

Cold comfort: the psychology of climate denial

2009-12-02T11:50:00.000Z

An interesting, small piece on some of the many reasons why climate change denial is apparently on the increase. It boils down to it being easier to have your head in the sand (even if that sand is getting hotter...) rather than face up to the reality of climate change.

In light of the CRU email hacking incident that has been seized upon by sceptics as 'proof' of a climate change conspiracy, combined with the almost inevitable disappointment that COP15 in Copenhagen is likely to be I wonder if 'community' really tackle can climate change, whether it is some localised form of it or the global 'community of nations'? The more I read at present the more I think that stronger Government regulation to encourage/enforce low carbon lifestyles is where we're heading unless there is some dramatic change in how people respond to climate change as an issue; but whether that will happen as a reactive rather than proactive response to climate change remains to be seen.

Perhaps what is needed instead is a complete change in how the issue is framed, and move away almost entirely from focussing on the apocalyptic imagery and scenarios of climate change of the 'we must avoid 2C rise in temperatures or we're doomed' and instead start presenting more positive imaging of how peoples local communities / counties / regions /countries / hemispheres / whatever may look in a low-carbon future...I know I'm getting a bit tired of so much negative imagery...

Cold comfort: the psychology of climate denial

Plane Stupid's shock ads linking flights with polar bear deaths could fall flat | Ed Gillespie | Environment | guardian.co.uk

2009-11-20T14:31:00.000Z

Futerra's Ed Gillespie commenting on more shock tactic ads - this time from Plane Stupid...quite a good article, pointing out some of the problems with shock ads, namely that they're not very effective. But the question that needs to be asked is that if they're not effective why does everyone from the Government to Plane Stupid persist in using them???

Plane Stupid's shock ads linking flights with polar bear deaths could fall flat | Ed Gillespie | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Rethinking Laundry in the 21st Century - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-11-12T12:30:00.000Z

An interesting blog from the New York Times that touches on some of the issues around conventions of comfort, cleanliness etc that have been covered during the course...

Rethinking Laundry in the 21st Century - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

There's an interesting post regarding re-using hotel towels - you know those little cards that get left in the bathroom asking you to re-use them for the sake of the environment? Apparently re-use rates went up 34% in one particular hotel when they added to the card the fact that most other guests DID re-use their towels. Individuals really do want to conform to prevailing norms it seems...

Community-based social marketing...a sociological or psychological approach to sustainable consumption?

2009-11-12T11:41:00.007Z

I had an interesting conversation with Gill and Tom yesterday following the lecture I gave on 'Behaviour change and Ipswich Town Football Club'.

Gill made the comment that the Save your Energy for the Blues campaign was essentially an example of community-based social marketing (CBSM) - a comment to which I would have to largely agree. But then I got thinking about the three strands of promoting sustainable consumption that the course has covered - Economics, Psychology and Sociology. Social marketing, when considered in that context, is deemed a 'psychological' approach - yet as I argued at some length yesterday, community-based approaches are, to my mind, inherently sociological in nature. So is CBSM a psychological or sociological approach to promoting sustainable consumption?

'Community', whether as an idea, locale, or symbolic construct, is a sociological construct. Traditional social marketing of the 'Act on CO2' and 'Are you doing your bit' kind adheres to the psychological approach, so if you combine the two what sort of hybrid have you created? Do we even need to classify it within such a framework? My own thoughts are that if its got 'community' in its title, it's sociological as you are creating a CBSM campaign with a clear target community in mind. Therefore, as community is a social construct, CBSM must at least in part be following the sociological pattern in that it is dealing with people not as individuals but as members of a group bound by certain lifestyle choices and routine practices - but I'd be interested to know the views of anyone else out there...

BBC NEWS | World | Free market flawed, says survey

2009-11-09T09:32:00.000Z

Is it news that the free market is flawed? Surely the newsworthy element of this is that someone bothered to ask people other than economists their opinion on free-marketeering in the first place...or is that a tad cynical for a Monday morning?

BBC NEWS | World | Free market flawed, says survey

BBC NEWS | Politics | 'Scary' UK climate ad faces probe

2009-10-21T15:52:00.001+01:00

Not only is it not necessarily going to be very effective, it turns out it also appears to be breaking some Advertising Standards Authority rules...oops...

BBC NEWS | Politics | 'Scary' UK climate ad faces probe

Bridging the Apathy Gap | ClimateBiz.com

2009-10-20T10:56:00.001+01:00

An interesting snippet of extra information to add to our discussions as to why appealing to the consumer as a rational decision maker doesn't always work, even with a proven economic incentive of saving money in place...the answer according to this is that they can't really be bothered...although whether that is actually news or not is an altogether different point...

Bridging the Apathy Gap | ClimateBiz.com

Shared via AddThis

Is technology the answer?

2009-10-19T13:36:00.002+01:00

In response to Ben's comment on my post below:

I guess the whole point about an issue such as climate change is that there is no single solution to the problem, and that a range of different approaches are needed.

Technology will no doubt play it's part, but relying on it to do so as the only or the major agent of change is too risky, encourages a 'business as usual' mindset, and creates the false impression that it is ok for us to continue living such a resource intensive lifestyle.

Social changes are also necessary to tackle climate change, and this is where the idea of engaging 'community' groups as another tool in the box of behavioural change methodologies comes in - appealing to an individuals conscience doesn't work beyond a committed minority, so before we go down the path of forcing people via taxation or carbon allowances - or indeed waiting for a technological fix such as CCS or a new generation of nuclear reactors to be built (neither of which I think are the answer either, by the way...) encouraging voluntary change seems a worthwhile pursuit.

UK Government's latest 'Act on CO2' campaign...

2009-10-16T12:24:00.003+01:00

Is this the way to encourage behavioural change?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc

Personally, I don't think so. Whilst the comments posted on YouTube are of the familiar sceptic variety - such as my personal favourite shown below, the real danger here is that the intended audience - individuals who may be concerned about the future impacts of climate change for both themselves and their children - are likely to be put off by the negativity inherent in the message. Dystopian visions of the future do not encourage most people to act, but instead encourages them to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away or that someone else will deal with it.

Defra's own research (amongst a list of other academic work on the subject) has shown the limited value of appealing to individuals via such information campaigns, whilst other work has also shown the limited effectiveness of using such overtly negative messaging as it does not resonate with a wide enough section of society.

My favourite YouTube sceptic quote (so far) attached to this video:

I like to think of myself as a conscious user of energy and yet I still find this advert infuriating. What a load of rubbish. Is this advert on the television? If it is then it should be pulled immediately. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT!!! Come on! Think about it! Humans exhale this stuff day in, day out to keep us alive!! There is literally NO (yes, that's right, ZERO, scientific proof that CO2 causes adverse affects to our atmosphere and global climates.

----------------------

Zero, sorry, ZERO scientific proof? That's a relief. We can all carry on as normal then...

But seriously, if, as the Government keeps telling us, we need to face up to the challenges of climate change, how do you engage with people such as the author of the above quote? This is where I believe the idea of 'community' can be used as an instrument of change to encourage pro-environmental behavioural change - even amongst those more reluctant members of society who remain disengaged from the issue.

'Community' as both an idea and as a place can have a powerful influence over people. The ties that bind people to community as either a physical location such as a village or suburb or as a shared sense of identity such as a company, sports club or church can be utilised to encourage people to change their behaviour without them necessarily having to engage with them on an intellectual/informational level as to why they are.

There is currently a limited (but growing) body of academic research around community engagement with sustainable development, consumption and climate change issues, however the potential to utilise 'community' as a focal point for future behavioural change campaigns has been recognised - and is in fact the focus of my own interest.

Correctly framed and presented climate change messaging aimed at individuals has its place, but to me the content of the latest Act on CO2 campaign is certainly not it...