Simcock, N., Catney, P., Dobson, A., MacGregor, S., Ormerod, M., Robinso, Z., and Ross, S.
(with Hall, S. M and Royston, S.) ‘Factors influencing perceptions of domestic energy
information: content, source and process
Draft article submitted to Energy Policy, July 2013 – currently in review.
Please do not cite without permission
Contact Prof. Andrew Dobson [email protected]
Factors influencing perceptions of domestic energy
information: content, source and process
Abstract
Reducing household energy consumption is an essential element of the UK Government’s
carbon reduction strategy. Whilst increased knowledge alone will not necessarily lead to tangible
actions on the part of consumers, knowledge of various kinds is, we argue, still important if
domestic energy usage is to be reduced. In an attempt to ‘educate’ the public, governments have
typically resorted to ‘mass information’ campaigns that have been considered largely
unsuccessful. Yet understanding what alternative forms of learning could be cultivated has been
limited by the dearth of research that explores whether and why people consider information
about energy and energy saving to be useful. By exploring this, we can move towards an
understanding of how knowledge about energy saving can be better shared and communicated,
enabling more meaningful learning to take place. Drawing on in-depth qualitative data with fiftyfive participants, this paper highlights a range of factors that affect perceptions of energy
information. It argues that these factors are not discrete, but are interlinked. A fundamentally
different model of knowledge exchange is needed for more effective learning about energy saving
to occur. A number of implications for policy are proposed in our conclusions.
1. Introduction
Reducing overall domestic energy demand is currently a major concern for policy and research.
As recent government policies like the Green Deal indicate, promoting household energy
efficiency is considered key to helping the UK reduce its overall carbon emissions. But how best
to bring about a reduction in domestic energy use is a matter of significant debate. In the past,
successive UK governments have attempted to ‘educate’ the public about domestic energy saving
through top-down, mass information campaigns such as “Are You Doing Your Bit?” and “Act
on CO2”, and through funding national advice services such as the Energy Saving Trust. The
idea has been that providing information will lead to the know-how needed to make changes in
consumption behaviour. However, academic research has found this approach to be relatively
unsuccessful in either encouraging energy efficient behaviour or in creating a general public that
is knowledgeable about energy saving (see, e.g., Shove, 2010; Catney et al., 2013). We agree that
whilst increased knowledge alone will not necessarily lead to tangible actions to reduce energy
consumption (Owens and Driffill, 2008), knowledge of energy efficiency is an important part of
the puzzle if domestic energy use is to be reduced (Darby, 2006; Salmela and Varho, 2006; Faiers
et al., 2007).
In this article, we argue that information provision does not necessarily lead to increased
knowledge: information and knowledge are not synonyms. Whereas information flows to people
through messages, knowledge is an understanding resulting from a multi-directional flow of
information that has been filtered, processed and anchored by the individual through whom it
flows (Nonaka, 1994; Catney et al. 2013). It matters, therefore, how information is received and
perceived by the people it is designed to reach, as this influences whether it can be processed and
‘translated’ into meaningful and useful knowledge and an increased understanding (Scarborough,
2013). Yet in light of the plethora of programmes based on the public dissemination of
information about energy efficiency, it is surprising that very little empirical research has
examined, in depth, how people perceive energy information of various kinds, and, moreover,
the factors that shape these perceptions. It is here that this paper makes a contribution. By
filling this gap in this literature, we offer some insights into how information about domestic
energy use might be better communicated, enabling more meaningful learning – the
development of energy knowledge – to take place. We draw on qualitative data from four case
studies, collected as part of a research project titled “Reducing Energy Consumption through
Community Knowledge Networks” (RECCKN), to highlight a range of factors that affect the
perceived usefulness of energy saving information.
In section two, we briefly review relevant literature on this topic. Section three then
outlines the methodological approach we adopted to collect the data. Section four details our
empirical findings, focussing on factors relating to: i) the content and subject of information, ii)
the source of the information, and iii) the process through which the information is communicated.
Finally, we summarise the findings and discuss their implications for policy, theory and practice,
arguing that there is a need for strategies of information provision to be designed around the
multiple factors highlighted.
2. Existing literature on the factors influencing perceptions of energy information
There are several quantitative studies which attempt to measure the impact, in terms of energy
consumption, of providing information or energy saving ‘tips’ to domestic consumers (for
example, Brandon and Lewis, 1999, Henryson et al., 2000, Wood and Newborough, 2003, Ueno
et al., 2006, Ouyang and Hokao, 2009,). Some of these studies also investigate the impact of
providing people with personalized feedback on their consumption patterns (for example, Wood
and Newborough, 2003). The degree of ‘impact’ the information provision has on energy
consumption is varied (Steg, 2008), ranging from very minimal change to estimated reductions of
around 9% over a two year period (Wilhite and Luing, 1995). However, these studies are often
unable to explain what it is that influences the degree to which information has been effective in
reducing consumption. The papers by Green et al., (1998), Darby (1999) and Boardman and
Darby (2000) are the most revealing on this matter, focussing on factors that enable effective
advice to the fuel poor. However, each of these studies gathered their empirical data from those
advising fuel poor residents, rather than through the perspectives of those actually receiving the
information. Despite this relative lack of literature, an analysis of these and other studies enables
us to identify a few factors that might influence perceptions of energy information.
A common theme in the literature is that information will be more useful if it is tailored
to the recipients’ lives and context (Green et al., 1998, Boardman and Darby, 2000; Steg, 2008).
Henryson et al. (2000) include evidence drawn from qualitative data from focus groups to make
this point, with their participants arguing that energy information was often too generalised.
Similarly, Brandon and Lewis (1999, p.84) included focus group analysis alongside their
quantitative data, wherein participants criticised “general leaflets” with “inappropriate
information or vague statements”, calling instead for more personalised advice. Similarly, the
time at which information is provided is also seen as important, with work by Darby (1999)
arguing for the effectiveness of ‘opportunistic’ advice provided at a time of change, such as
moving home or undertaking renovation work. Studies also suggest that the comprehensibility of
information is important (Wood and Newborough, 2003). Darby (1999) is sceptical of the use of
written, paper-based advice for this reason, arguing that this may not be suitable for many adults.
Studies also suggest that information that allows people to compare their levels of overall
consumption to one another is also potentially effective (Steg, 2008, Stern and Aronson, 1984,
Henryson et al., 2000, Arvola, 1993).
One limitation of this literature is that it largely focusses on the psychological dimensions of
perceptions of energy information (Steg, 2008). In doing so, it de-emphasises the influence of the
wider social, institutional, political and cultural context (Shove, 2010) and places weight solely on
factors relating to the content of information and the characteristics and responses of the
individual. In effect, such approaches take the individual out of their social and political contexts,
ignoring the interactional nature of learning (see Wenger 1998; Catney et al 2013). In contrast,
literature from the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) highlights how perceptions of science
and scientific information are as much a social issue as a psychological one (Irwin, 1995). This
body of work suggests that public perceptions of an information source shape, and are entwined
with, perceptions of the information itself (Irwin and Wynne, 1996). Trust in the source is crucial
if information is to be considered reliable (Wynne, 1992). Yet such insights have rarely featured
in studies that focus on information about domestic energy consumption. Exceptions are
Boardman and Darby (2000) and Green et al., (1998), who highlight the importance of a
recipient trusting those providing advice if they are to subsequently take action, and also discuss
the need to build this through face-to-face interaction (although, as noted above, their empirical
data were limited to eliciting responses from ‘experts’ , not households themselves). However,
there has been little empirical literature beyond this point. Thus, the social nature of learning and
information-sharing about more efficient domestic energy use is something we seek to
investigate in the RECCKN project (Catney et al., 2013).
Another insight from the SSK literature is a critique of the ‘top-down’ model of
information communication, where information is disseminated by powerful elites (such as
government or companies) to the public. This model is criticised on theoretical and pragmatic
grounds for being based on an ingrained ‘information-deficit’ view of the public (see, for
example, Wynne 1991; Burgess et al., 1998), a view that assumes people behave in particular
ways (in this case, consume too much energy) because they lack information (Owens and Driffil
2008). The information-deficit approach, it is argued, relies on a methodological individualism
that treats people as isolated individuals who make rational choices based on available
information. It therefore ignores their material conditions and the impact of social interactions,
relations and processes in shaping how people learn (Catney et al., 2013). Moreover, by assuming
people lack the right information, it fails to take into account the knowledge that people already
hold (Burgess et al., 1998).
This section has shown that there is clear scope for further research that investigates
factors that influence perceptions of energy information, including a wider range of theoretical
insights and adopting a more in-depth, qualitative approach.
3. Methods
Exploring the interactional nature of learning in a community context requires using methods
that explore the avenues, means and methods through which knowledge is created, shaped and
dispersed (or held up) in communities. This approach does not easily lend itself to conventional
survey-based research because, as discussed below, our project seeks to analyse how information
is converted into knowledge through interaction. We adopted a multi-method case study
approach which involved a significant degree of collaboration with community advisors and
research participants.
The data were collected from interviews and focus groups with individuals from fifty-five
households, each living within one of four areas in two towns in the West Midlands: Shrewsbury
and Newcastle-under-Lyme.1 In total, participants came from thirty households in Shrewsbury,
and twenty-five in Newcastle-under-Lyme. For comparative purposes the areas in the towns
selected had contrasting socio-economic and historical contexts. The two areas selected from
Newcastle-under-Lyme are relatively economically deprived. Silverdale is a former coalmining
area hit hard by the closure of its colliery in 1998, whilst Knutton and Cross Heath are amongst
the 10% most economically deprived wards in the UK. In contrast, Shrewsbury, the county town
of Shropshire, is a comparatively affluent market town with a strong tourism sector. The two
sample areas selected in Shrewsbury, Porthill and Belle Vue, were representative of this relative
economic affluence. To recruit participants, a ‘purposive’ sampling strategy was adopted
(Longhurst 2010). We purposely recruited a sample that broadly represents a cross-section of
each community in terms of age of participant, housing type and geographic location. Our
rationale was that if particular understandings about energy information and its flow were shared
across each diverse sample, and between the samples from two very different towns, then they
might logically be applicable to UK communities more broadly.
Interviews were conducted with participating household between April and June 2012.
Taking place at the participants’ homes, the interviews lasted around an hour, involved at least
one representative of the household, and were semi-structured, allowing the interviewer to probe
particular views. Each interview covered questions relating to: how the participants used energy
in their home, how they learned about energy usage and the sources of information they utilised
and were aware of, what they considered useful information sources, and whether they shared
their information, knowledge and experience when interacting with others. At the end of each
interview, every participant was given an Electricity Display Monitor (EDM) that would measure
and display their household’s electricity consumption.
1 In this paper we refer to these households as S1-S30 (Shrewsbury participants) and N1-N25 (Newcastle
participants).
Alongside these interviews, this paper also draws on data from eight focus group
discussions: two focus groups involving participants in each study area were held in June and
September 2012 (another round was held in February and March 2013). The first focus groups
asked participants to discuss how they felt about having the EDM in their home, whether they
had learnt anything from it or had done anything different as a result. We sought to gain insight
into the interactional nature of learning by asking participants to talk about: whether they had
discussed the information provided by their EDM with others; the general sources of
information that they consulted and trusted in their daily lives; the sources of information they
would use in relation to energy saving as well as the perceived effectiveness of these sources. In
the second round of focus groups, after again evaluating the current sources of energy
information they encountered, participants discussed what a ‘better’ way for people in their
community to learn about energy saving might involve.
The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. They
were then coded using the nVivo software package and subsequently analysed inductively to
draw out themes relating to energy information and practices. The findings presented in the next
section arise from this analysis.
4. Findings
Our data suggest that the factors influencing perceptions of energy information can be split into
three major groups: i) factors relating to the content of the information being communicated, ii)
factors related to perceptions of the information source and iii) factors relating to the process
through which information is communicated. The analysis that follows elaborates and illustrates
these three groups.
4.1 The content of information
4.1.1 Contextualised information
One of the most common themes participants highlighted was that, to be considered useful,
information had to be contextualised so that it was relevant to their lives and circumstances. Two
broad categories of information were identified by participants as, in principle, potentially useful.
The first related to their household’s overall energy consumption and about the consumption
levels of individual appliances or associated practices. The second included information that
could tell them how to do something that might reduce their energy usage or enable them to use
energy more efficiently.
Participants suggested that information about levels of consumption had to be directly
relatable to personal circumstances and situations. Therefore, tailored data about how much
energy they were personally consuming, how much energy their specific household appliances
consumed, and the impact that undertaking a particular ‘energy saving’ or efficiency measure
would have on their overall consumption, were all highlighted as useful. Furthermore, very few
participants discussed their energy consumption, or any motivations they might have for saving
energy, in terms of kilowatt-hours (kWh) or CO2 emissions. Similar to findings by Hargreaves et
al. (2010), some people criticised information that described energy consumption in these terms,
finding it confusing and abstract:
Sometimes I look at the bill and see how many kilowatts but I don’t find it easy to understand, at all,
this many kilowatt hours are this and this many - I can’t even think what the unit is to measure gas
with, that’s terrible ... I would rarely go, ‘we’ve saved 1000 kilowatt hours’ or whatever you might say
because I wouldn’t have a clue… I do read my meter but I just don’t take in the information (S21,
female, 20s).
Instead, the vast majority of participants ‘made sense’ of their current consumption and the
impact of energy saving measures in terms of cost implication, or sometimes in relation to notions
of warmth and comfort. As such, it was clear that participants much preferred information that
aimed to quantify consumption or savings to be expressed in monetary terms. For example:
Q: And would you like more information about saving energy then?
N14: … I think maybe if there was something that could go round telling people exactly how much
energy, in money terms, they wasted on certain things that might actually work better than just saying,
“Turn off this, turn off that,” if it was made in real terms which I’m sure somebody clever could do.
That would make an impact (Female, 20s; emphasis added).
Expressing energy saving in ‘money terms’ provided a way to contextualise information,
allowing participants to understand and ‘anchor’ their energy usage in relation to their own lives
and pre-existing ‘frames of reference’ (Hargreaves et al., 2008; Owens and Driffill, 2008; DevineWright, 2009). As such, it also allowed them to understand their consumption in relative terms,
providing an awareness of what were ‘high’ and ‘low’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’, levels of consumption in
a way that abstract figures referring to kWh and CO2 emissions did not. N14’s quote above
about how describing the cost impact of particular practices would put energy wastage into “real
terms” illustrates this point well. Several participants also suggested that information that allowed
them to compare themselves to others in similar circumstances was valuable in part for the same
reason – it allowed them to understand their payments or consumption relatively.
With regard to practical information that communicated how to do things, participants
argued that information that was appropriate for, and tailored toward, their particular
circumstances was most valuable. Consistent with other studies (for example, Brandon and
Lewis, 1999), generalised practical advice was criticised as being often irrelevant because it didn’t
account for the specific circumstances of a household:
Q: Is more information about saving energy something that you want?
S17: Again I sort of feel like I don’t really have enough time to engage in things unless it’s very, very
targeted for me, so it would have to be really targeted information that definitely would help me otherwise
I wouldn’t feel like I’ve got time to indulge in it … Yes I suppose actually more awareness about certain
things and how to save energy, I suppose very focused little bits of information that I can then adopt if I
want to (Female, 40s).
But you do, I mean, I tend to just not bother and take any notice [of TV adverts about energy]. But
yeah, anything that’s relevant to your own, or anybody else's complaint, you do take notice (N6, male,
60s).
The circumstances participants felt information should be tailored toward included a range of
things, such as the physical character of a person’s home or the types of actions they already
undertook. Some also suggested that timing was an important factor, implying that they would be
more receptive to practical information if given when they were interested in making changes to
their home or lives. For example, N10 (male, 40s) stated that the value of energy saving
information depended on “whether it’s relevant to what you’re doing at the time.”
Several participants also suggested they would be more receptive to information that
accounted for what they already knew or did. For example, they preferred information that was
new to them. Contrary to the classic ‘empty vessel’ image suggested by the information-deficit
model, all participants had at least a basic knowledge of energy efficiency. Moreover, they were
the ‘experts’ about their own situations. Whilst we are not arguing there was not space for them
to learn more – as indeed there is for anyone – for several participants there was little benefit in
the typical, unspecific advice they often received.
Q: … So would you say you’d like some more information about saving energy?
N12: Not general information, maybe something more specific. More helpful … If it was something new,
I don’t want old information … [The energy suppliers] do send little things through but it’s nothing that
I haven’t read before. I scan over it and if it’s nothing new it just goes in the recycler (Female, 40s).
Others did consider information on what they already knew to be useful as a reminder, but little
more than this. Our findings suggest that the issue is not that there is no value in reminding
people, but that this type of information needs to be at least combined with a more personal,
tailored kind that fits people’s contexts and takes account of their pre-existing knowledge. It is
crucial to remember that “information will be interpreted in the light of pre-existing frames”
(Owens and Driffill, 2008, p.4414).
4.1.2 Ease of understanding
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the clarity of the information can influence perceptions of its utility, with
information considered confusing generally not perceived as useful.2 This is related to the degree
of complexity in the wording or presentation of information (Darby, 1999; Bell et al., 2005). This
factor is interconnected in two ways – illustrated in Figure 1 – with the need for contextualised
information discussed in section 4.1.1 above.
First, information about something considered meaningful rather than abstract (money
rather than kilowatts, for example) can make it more understandable. Second, contextualising
information is also about ensuring its language is comprehensible and sensitive to the
particularities of the recipient; overly-technical and complex wording, jargon and sentence
structure can serve to exclude (Wynne, 1982). For example:
You get these pieces of paper that tell you an awful lot of guff and then they say at the end, you don't need
to do this anyway … Companies and government and you know, all these official documents. You know,
so many of them are completely unintelligible to most people, and as I say, I had this wonderful leaflet
that I couldn't understand a word of… (S8, female, 70s).
2 In our study, many participants found information about energy company tariffs and bill payments to
be difficult to understand. Some felt that information about their price plans and energy bills were
worded confusingly, thereby preventing them from understanding why they were paying a particular
amount or why their payments were changing. Some also explained that this complexity, combined with
the sheer number of different tariffs available, made tariff comparison extremely difficult and acted as a
disincentive to switching provider.
In the above example, part of the reason S8 finds this information unhelpful is that it is
irrelevant to her everyday concerns – it tells her “an awful lot of guff”. But the quote also
illustrates that another (related) problem was that the wording was complex and “unintelligible”.
A further consequence of unintelligible information was that it could lead to participants
feeling it had been deliberately presented in this manner in order to limit the recipient’s ability to
make informed decisions. It therefore contributed to shaping perceptions of the motives of an
information source – and thus their trustworthiness:
Q: Do you ever feel confused about [saving energy]?
S7: Well, of course it's all confusing, because it's designed to confuse you and really in order to find out
exactly what's going on, you'd need to be doing a part-time job, really, wouldn’t you? (S7, female, 70s).
I just don’t trust [the energy companies] because they make it so complex to understand the tariffs (S4,
male, 40s).
It is to trustworthiness, and its impact upon perceptions of the usefulness of energy information
that we now turn.
4.2 The source of the information
4.2.1 Trustworthiness
For most of our participants, the degree to which an information source was considered to be
trustworthy was one of the most crucial factors influencing the perceived accuracy, relevance and
usefulness of received information. Similar findings have been found in other contexts (for
example, Wynne 1992; Irwin 1995; Upham and Shackley, 2006; Eden et al., 2008a). In our study,
information coming from what is perceived as a relatively untrustworthy source was not
considered to be useful. For example:
Q: … So you have actually been getting a lot of information from companies but none of
you said [it was one of the most useful sources of information]…
S2: Because we don’t trust them. (Female, 50s)
S4: We don’t trust them that’s the trouble. (Male, 40s)
S2: Everybody wants a bit of you (Quote from Shrewsbury Porthill focus group).
The major factor determining an information provider’s trustworthiness was not their
‘social distance’ from the recipient, as some research has suggested (cf. Faiers et al., 2007); whilst
close friends and family were mentioned by several participants as actual and potential sources of
trustworthy information, so too were more socially distant organisations like charities and, in
fewer cases, the local council and occasionally the national government.3 More important was the
perceived motives of the information provider; i.e., whether it was perceived to be in the
provider’s interests to give honest and accurate information (Hardin 1996, 2000). As such, profitmaking companies were often perceived to have an agenda that would either jeopardise their
judgement (Eden et al., 2008b), or would lead them intentionally to distort information so as to
further their own profit interest.
Q: And which do you think would be the most useful source of information … ?
N4: Well I think that depends on who’s trying to sell you what. The council are sort of trying to help
you, where the companies are trying to get you to go with them aren’t they, so they’re obviously only giving
you the information they want you to see, I think (Female, 50s).
I think the council you can trust … the companies there’s [apparently] a real attempt to reduce
consumption but it goes against the business model doesn’t it? The more you consume the better their
figures are. So, yeah, there’s probably a bit of apprehension in trusting there (S4, male, 40s).
Trustworthy information sources were those whose perceived motive was not to make a profit
or to sell a product, but to provide honest advice designed to help the recipient. For example:
… there was a sense in which having somebody talk about it in the right place without something to sell
apart from the benefit is useful. And I think that Marches Energy [Agency] … I see those in the same
light. They’ve got nothing to sell except the saving of energy as against products and that you can trust
normally I would hope (S14, Male, 60s).
However, perceptions of trustworthiness and motive were not static and based solely on a
judgement of the source’s ‘social position’ or institutional design (e.g. whether a profit-making
company, a charity, or government). They were also to some extent dynamic and shaped by a
participant’s experience of, and interaction with, the information source. For example, section
3 There is not the space here to fully explore the range and number of trustworthy and untrustworthy
information sources, but we will focus on this topic in a future paper.
4.1.2 illustrated that the comprehensibility of information influenced perceptions of
trustworthiness. Meanwhile, sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 show that the process through which
information is communicated can similarly have impacts upon trustworthiness.
4.2.2 Expertise
The perceived ‘expertise’ of an information source was a factor that participants subtly
differentiated from trustworthiness, because it related to the competence of the information source
on the topic of energy saving, rather than its/their honesty. Those considered to be formal or
qualified experts (Irwin, 1995) on domestic energy saving were perceived as potential sources of
useful information by many participants. It was felt that their advice would likely be ‘accurate’ or
‘correct’ – in essence, they were “knowledgeable and knew what they were talking about” (S11, female,
70s). For example:
Q: If you had [a question about energy saving] where would you go to find an answer to
the question?
N16: Depends on what the subject was. Possibly E.ON or maybe to an electrical engineer. I certainly
wouldn’t be going to supermarkets, somewhere where they are only selling appliances because their
technical knowledge is probably very restricted (Male, 70s).
As the above quote implies, qualified experts were also perceived to be able to communicate
detailed, specialised information, whilst those without such dedicated know-how were limited in
this respect. Specialist knowledge also allowed ‘experts’ to tailor and contextualise their advice –
including prioritising what would be the best energy saving measures for a person to take:
I would go to [the Centre for Alternative Technology] and if [they] said, “Yeah. That’s the best,” I
would believe them because they are scientifically knowledgeable (S13, male, 70s).
It is important to note that whenever our participants discussed the ‘expert’ sources that
they valued, it was often ‘blue collar’ workers such as technicians, or professional websites that
would tell them how to do something – essentially, those they felt would provide information
grounded in the practicalities of how or what to do in the home. As N10 said when asked “what
would be a useful event for sharing knowledge about energy saving”: “Not three geeks with beards
pointing at a graph” (Male, 40s, Knutton focus group). We believe this practical grounding
prompted perceptions that the information was, again, contextualised and relevant to
participants’ everyday lives (Catney et al., 2013). Figure 1 illustrates this link between expertise
and contextualised information.
Several participants also noted that those who weren’t formal experts could also provide
useful information. In particular, hearing the personal experiences of their peers who had taken
energy saving measures was considered very valuable. This information could be gained through
both face-to-face and virtual encounters, with some participants suggesting the most useful
internet sites about energy saving were those that allowed examination of peer opinion. Part of
the value of such information came from a perception of commonality or identification – the
sense that peers had been through relevant experiences from a similar situation or position, and
so applicable lessons could be learned from them (Wenger, 1998). For example, N17 (female,
50s) said she found the experience of friends the most useful source of energy information,
justifying this by saying “because they are the ones who are actually using it [a product] day to day”. Some
of those who sought out information from online communities used a similar justification, such
as S18 who reported that he accessed information from “… online forums, from the people who are
actually doing it” (male, 30s). Information from peers could cover practical tips and experience of
particular products, but also reflections on good places to go for more formalised, expert advice.
Hearing about the experiences of others can also be important for raising awareness of the
potential for positive action, from which further, more detailed investigation is undertaken
(Boardman and Darby, 2000).
Another value some participants identified in peer advice was that they found it useful to
hear, or that they would like to hear, about others’ everyday routines or practices. Comparing
and reflecting on their own situation and habits then allowed them to understand their behaviour
in useful, relative terms (see section 4.1.1 above), as the following quotes illustrate:
Q: Do you have any suggestions for how people who live around here could learn more
about saving energy?
S27: Well maybe have a little meeting like what you’re planning.4 I think it’s always good to hear what
somebody else does or doesn’t do (female, 70s).
I will regularly compare at work. I'll say, you know, what are you paying a month for your gas? That's
how I've gauged whether I'm paying a reasonable amount (S12, female, 40s; Shrewsbury Belle Vue
focus group).
4
Here the participant is referring to the focus group discussions, which had yet to take place at this time.
Implicitly, this finding also suggests that participants were interested in discovering, as Hitchings
and Day (2011) have argued in relation to older people’s heating practices, alternative routines
and everyday conventions. This is interesting and potentially important because convention can
be a powerful way to change behaviour since, as social beings, “people are often naturally
inclined to do the same as one other” (Hitchings and Day, 2011, p.2456).
Overall, participants saw both formal ‘experts’ and so-called ‘non-experts’ as sources of
potentially useful information, each competent in their own particular way. Indeed, their advice
could be potentially complementary, fulfilling different roles depending upon the specific
situation at hand. Some combined conclusions can be drawn from section 4.2.2 on expertise and
section 4.2.1 on trustworthiness. Assessments of an information source illustrate the active,
critical and social manner in which new information is received and judged. Irwin’s (1995, p.97)
assertion that information will be taken in context, and that “the source of the information will
inevitably colour response to the information itself” (see also Wynne, 1991), is highly relevant
here. Contrary to the assumptions of the ‘information deficit’ understanding, participants did not
simply ‘absorb’ any information that was funnelled down to them. Another point is that while
judgements of trustworthiness and expertise were often interlinked, they can also clash with one
another when making an overall assessment of an information source. For example, N1
recognised that energy companies were ‘experts’, yet he considered them untrustworthy. Some
participants reported difficulty finding an information source that was both knowledgeable and
trustworthy.
… you look at the companies, British Gas, E-On, N Power, they make the stuff so hopefully they know
what they’re on about … I suppose at the end of the day they’ve got an ulterior motive to sell you stuff,
but hopefully they’ll know what they’re on about (N1, male, 50s).
This section has demonstrated several connections between some of the factors
discussed thus far, particularly how perceptions of expertise can influence whether an
information source is considered capable of providing contextualised information, and the links
between trustworthiness and expertise. Section 4.1.2 also highlighted several connections
between contextualised information, ease of understanding, and the trustworthiness of a source.
Figure 1, below provides a visual illustration of these linkages.
Figure 1: Interlinks between contextualised information, ease of understanding, and the perceived trustworthiness
and expertise of an information source.
4.3 The process of information communication: ‘top down’ or interactive?
In the following section, we make a distinction between information that has been received
through a relatively ‘top-down,’ or ‘one-way’ communication process, and that which is gathered
through an interactive process. Importantly, we see the latter as aiding the translation of
information into meaningful knowledge.
4.3.1 Problems with a ‘top-down’ process
A characteristic of a top-down information provision process is that the decision on what
information is given, and often where and when it is given, is taken by the powerful provider
(Irwin, 1995). The flow of communication is one-way; what Leonard Waks refers to as ‘straightline’ or monological communication (2011, p. 201). In this process, a predetermined message is
communicated, with little or no opportunity for the topic or content to be discussed with or
scrutinised by the ‘recipient’, who is implicitly treated as passive and lacking knowledge (Burgess
et al., 1998). This approach has been extensively criticised in the literature and our research has
similarly found it to be problematic.
Firstly, far from being passive receptors that blindly absorbed the information they
encountered, our participants were very active in assessing information and its source, and were
often sceptical of what they received. They wanted to scrutinise and negotiate information to
ensure it was meaningful and useful for their needs and situation, as part of what Scarborough
(2013) calls the “translation” of knowledge from one context to another. However, because
monological processes provide little opportunity to discuss recipients’ specific circumstances, the
information provided is generalised and, therefore, is often perceived as irrelevant or of limited
practical value (Irwin, 1995; see also section 4.1.1). Moreover, a lack of ability to be listened to
and influence the information one is receiving can lead to the process itself being frustrating and
disempowering. A pertinent example of this is N17 (female, 50s). Having phoned her energy
supplier for advice on reducing her consumption, she was irritated that, during a period of cold
weather, generic information about turning down her thermostat was given, even though she
informed them she had already taken this measure. She got the sense that the adviser was merely
reading from an autocue rather than engaging in a discussion about her concerns. As well as
resulting in irrelevant information, she found this process to be “very patronising”. She was
implicitly assumed to be ignorant, when in fact she already had a degree of knowledge about
energy saving and of what was suitable for her circumstances.
Secondly, we found that a monological process may influence perceptions of an
information source’s trustworthiness. A lack of opportunity to scrutinise or influence could lead
to feelings that a piece of information, and the particular message or perspective it carried, was
being imposed upon them (Barnes, 1985). This could reinforce any initial scepticism of the
information provider, as it suggested they were merely trying to pursue an agenda, rather than
serve the needs or attend to the problems of the recipient. In this situation, the typical response
was to view the information as unhelpful and ignore it:
I suppose the least helpful [source of information] is somebody trying to give me a hard sell, where I'm
only getting one side of the picture (S7, Female, 70s).
N10: Yes [this company] were absolutely adamant that they could provide [solar PV], even though
I told them we faced the wrong way. They came out and tried to convince me that I was wrong.
Well I was on the phone for about 20 minutes telling this guy that you’re wasting your time, he was
absolutely adamant that I was wrong ...
Q: But you didn’t believe him?
N10: No (male, 40s).
Feelings that information was being imposed could also result from having no influence over
whether, when or where information was received, with these choices instead again taken solely
by the powerful provider.5 The frequent description of various ‘mass information’ methods as
“intrusive”, or participant accounts of feeling “harassed” and “bombarded”, illustrate the sense of
imposition:
N6 (male, 60s): And [flyers and people knocking on the door are] part of it, again, that's part of the
telephone calls you get, really intrusive.
N6/2 (female, 60s): I don't even look at flyers now, I just tear them up and put them in the bin.
For example, common forms of this sort of process were ‘cold calls’ received via telephone or on the
doorstep without invitation , whilst some participants also noted posted flyers, emails (typically described
as “junk mail”), or being stopped by advertisers whilst they were in a public space such as a supermarket.
5
The communication process can therefore strengthen or reinforce perceptions that an
information source is untrustworthy (see section 4.2.1). Processes that make no attempt to justify
or scrutinise information with the recipient are a mistake when the public is active in assessing
sources and often wants to be in control (Irwin, 1995). Another key point is that attributions of
‘imposing’ information were not exclusively relevant to businesses. For example, N12 described
how her trust in her local council as a source of energy information depended on how they
communicated it. If she felt they were merely trying to “scaremonger” her, she would not value
their advice.
4.3.2 The interactive alternative
During interviews and focus groups, when asked to consider what sorts of information they
found useful, participants’ answers consistently suggested information acquired through some
form of interactive process. By this we mean processes where the ‘recipient’ is active in shaping
decisions about the information received, rather than a provider unilaterally judging its value,
accuracy and appropriateness. In this sense, interactive processes ‘democratise’ the power
relations between those involved (Barnes, 1985). Indeed, these processes seem to help solve
several of the problems apparent in a top-down process.
First, the issue of ensuring information is contextualised and understandable. Because
interactive processes allowed participants a degree of control or selection over what information
they garnered, they were thus able to tailor it to their particular needs and current levels of
knowledge. For example, some argued the internet was very useful as a tool for allowing them to
access relevant information. It provided a process where the user is able to determine the topics
researched and the websites visited, finding information relevant to their personal circumstances
and the amount of detail they required:
S28: I think it's just I'm familiar with it and you can get very specific information can't you, if you know
what to look for, so it's very easy and quite an efficient way to get information I suppose. For example, if
I was to look for a cooker, I could soon do a lot of research and quickly find out what's the best (Male,
30s).
Moreover, as noted in section 4.2.2, there were also several examples of participants who mostly
used the internet to access online discussion forums about energy, where they were able to
interact with others in a conversational manner and ask specifically for their desired information.
A significant number of participants advocated verbal interactions as a way of receiving
contextualised information. Some of these did not use the internet – digital illiteracy was an issue
for some people – but there were also many who could use the internet but still preferred to
speak to a human being. Crucially, verbal interaction was useful when it provided the
opportunity for all parties to discuss, challenge and ask questions about particular issues relevant
to a particular context – i.e. when the process was dialogic, rather than monologic. In this sense,
the process is one of exchange and ‘social learning’ for all parties (Darby, 2006), with the socalled ‘provider’ learning from the recipient, and vice-versa. For example, S6 told us how she
would not like to listen to someone “burbling on” at her, but would value an interactive process
of sharing ideas, discussion and getting her questions answered:
Q: Do you have any suggestions for how people who live around here could learn more
about saving energy?
S6: There could be a workshop … if there was sort of somewhere where you could go and ask questions
about energy or a workshop of people with a couple of experts leading, but I can’t waste time just going
listening to burbling on. I think it’s good if people submit questions and then they were answered. That
could be done by email, but I think sometimes getting together and sharing ideas would be quite good.
And there was a day recently… there was somebody organised a day where you could go and look at
houses where they had changed their house to be more energy efficient (Female, 60s).
As well as helping ensure information is contextualised, interactive, participatory
processes are also known to help build trust in an information source and in the accuracy of the
information given (Healey, 1996; Walker et al., 1999). Our findings suggest that this is partly
because they can reduce the feeling that a ‘one-sided’ agenda is being imposed upon passive
recipients. Rather, there is space to influence and scrutinise the accuracy and relevance of both
the information and the trustworthiness and expertise of its source. In verbal encounters, this
happens through reflective conversation and ‘critical dialogue’ (Forester, 1999; Smith, 2003;
Healey, 2006; Gilchrist, 2009).6 The following quote by S8 illustrates this well:
6
Whilst not a common occurrence, there were a few cases amongst our participants where a positive,
interactive information gathering process had helped to build a degree of trust in a source often
considered untrustworthy – particularly energy utility companies. For example, N5 had purchased a boiler
from British Gas. This participant was happy with the advice provided “because they showed us the
various options” and an open discussion was had, rather than a sense that the British Gas representative
was trying force a particular decision.
Q: Do you have any suggestions for how people who live around here could learn more
about saving energy?
S8: Well, I was wondering about the possibilities say of a public meeting you know, with giving
information and with experts. I think I would like to hear... I like to hear people face-to-face and hear
them respond to arguments, because then I think you are getting a fairer view, than if you're just being
pressured from one side ... I think things which are more personal to people. You know we tend to toss
out the stuff that we look at and think, you know this is just another selling gimmick so we'll get rid of it
... (female, 70s).
For those who advocated the internet as a potential tool for finding energy information, part of
its value was also that it allowed the opportunity to decide when information was received, and to
reflect upon it in a relatively unpressured environment. However, as noted several participants
felt that the internet was not the always the best way to receive advice. Rather, they valued not
only the talking and debate enabled by dialogic encounters but also their face-to-face element. And,
for reasons of digital illiteracy and lack of access, some argued that the internet was not suitable
for everyone.
As illustrated, the nature of the information communication process itself influences and
is interlinked with the factors discussed in earlier sections. Figure 2, below, builds on Figure 1 to
offer a more complete graphic representation of the linkages highlighted.
Figure 2: The linkages between all the factors analysed.
5. Conclusions and policy implications
This article has highlighted the range of factors that influence householder perceptions of
domestic energy information. Since these factors relate to not only to the content and form of
the information, but also its source and communication process, assessments of energy
information are as much a social issue as a psychological one. Here we have supported
arguments made in the literature on the sociology of scientific knowledge (cf. Irwin, 1995). We
have also illustrated that the (inter)active way that people assess information and develop
knowledge is very different to the passive receptor assumed by information-deficit
understandings of energy consumers (Catney et al., 2013). Energy information does not seem to
be accepted without question, and information will not necessarily lead to increased knowledge
or understanding. To conclude, we now discuss the implications of our findings for policy and
practice.
The vast majority of our participants argued that, to be useful, information had to be
tailored and contextualised to their personal circumstances. For them, a clear problem with
much information was that it was too generalised. Echoing what other researchers have argued
(e.g., Steg, 2008), our findings thus indicate that there is a need for policy to support more
‘personalised’ approaches that allow tailored information to be shared. In this regard, at least, the
specialist home-visits provided under the Green Deal seem worthwhile. Importantly, our
evidence also suggests that considering what people already know is also crucial. People are not
empty vessels, merely waiting to soak up any information they receive. People’s existing, situated
knowledge and frames of understanding about energy and their own lives (Burgess et al., 1998;
Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009) should be recognised and respected in policy discourse, with
information communication strategies tailored accordingly.
Relatedly, our findings suggest that information relating to levels of consumption needs
to be expressed in terms that can be easily ‘anchored’ to common, everyday frames of
understanding. Describing energy consumption or saving levels in terms of money is one way of
doing this. The current direction of DECC policy does indeed emphasise the promotion of
potential financial savings resulting from energy efficiency improvements (personal
correspondence). However, focussing on money-saving can be seen as an instrumental, limited
and potentially short-lived way of encouraging more sustainable lifestyles (Dobson, 2011).
Therefore, whilst many people do seem to be better able to understand monetary measures of
consumption (Hargreaves et al., 2010), policy and research could also investigate and support
ways of making other forms of measurement more concrete and relevant to people’s lives.
Allowing comparison by providing figures on the amount of energy (perhaps in kWh or simply
‘units’) used by other, similar households may be one example of this.
Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 illustrate how perceptions of an information source are very
important in shaping assessments of the information itself (Irwin, 1995). We found that the
perceived trustworthiness and expertise to be the two major factors here. A relatively high degree of
interpersonal trust in an information source is crucial for advice to be considered useful, with
trustworthiness shaped by perceptions of an information source’s motive for providing advice.
Issues therefore arise since much of the information our participants received came from
relatively distrusted businesses. For much of the previous decade, the UK Government has
sought to place responsibility, principally through obligations, on the energy companies for
promoting energy efficiency. While these approaches can help release considerable private
resources, expecting energy companies to provide advice when the information they give may be
considered suspect seems counterproductive. In terms of recent policy changes, our findings also
indicate that the fact Green Deal advisors are able to be affiliated with provider companies may
raise issues of trust, especially since householders are being asked to make form of financial
commitment. Overall, the implication of our findings is that there is a need to encourage and
nurture, in part through financial support, alternative and trusted sources of information.
Interestingly we found that while recognised experts were considered to be potentially
useful sources of information (provided it is intelligible) so too were those without such formal
experience or training. Peers, particularly those with first-hand experience, were considered very
valuable potential sources of advice that was relevant, grounded and practical. There was also
evidence to suggest that people were interested in learning about others’, potentially alternative,
household routines and conventions. Moreover, peers were also often considered a trustworthy
source of information. Again, this suggests there is a need to recognise the value of the local
knowledge and experiences that ‘lay people’ hold in relation to energy. It also suggests that,
alongside the current policy focus on, and funding for, ‘expert’ advisors, there potentially is value
in support for strategies that encourage and create opportunities for the exchange of ‘informal’
knowledge between peers, as also proposed by Hitchings and Day (2011).
A key argument of this paper is that the issues discussed so far are entwined with the
process through which information is communicated. Our findings illustrate the limitations of a
‘top-down’, monological model of communication. When describing examples of useful forms
of information provision, participants in our study repeatedly gave examples of processes that
were in some way interactive. Such processes help contextualise information, and through
allowing scrutiny and exploration of ambiguity and contradictions, build trust in both the
information and its source (Gilchrist, 2009). Resonating with our findings, other research also
suggests that people learn more deeply through interaction, as it is partly during this practice, and
the reflection that comes during and after it, that experiences and messages are filtered and
synthesised into meaningful knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wenger, 1998). Whilst
several participants cited the internet as a positive tool for interactive information gathering,
there also seemed to be particular value in dialogue and face-to-face encounters. Both peer-topeer advice, and more traditional forms of ‘expert-to-layperson’ advice, would work best if they
took the form of a dialogic exchange of information. In ‘expert-to-layperson’ encounters, this
involves the ‘expert’ learning and respecting lay-peoples’ personal contexts and about what
valuable knowledge they may already hold. Our recommendation, therefore, is that policy in this
area should encourage and nurture strategies for initiating a more open, often group, discussion
and experience sharing about energy efficiency. This is likely to require some diversion of
funding to make such an approach feasible and attractive.
In sum, we suggest that the findings presented here reinforce the viewpoint that topdown, generic information campaigns designed to ‘send messages’ or ‘educate’ people about
energy efficiency will be limited in their perceived utility and in their impact (Rose, 2010). In
their place should be strategies that are responsive to the various factors discussed here, and can
enable the sharing of energy information through both ‘peer-to-peer’ and ‘expert-lay’ interaction.
Because all the factors we have highlighted are entwined with one another, any policy strategy
will likely work best when it incorporates all of these factors.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those who participated in the RECCKN project, including the
members of our two Community Advisory Groups who helped us in the early stages of the
research. We are grateful to the ESRC and EPSRC for funding this research through their
Energy & Communities Programme.
References
Arvola, A., 1993. Billing feedback as a means to encourage household electricity conservation: a
field experiment in Helsinki. In: Ling, R. and Wilhite, H. eds. The Energy Efficiency
Challenge For Europe. Proceedings of ECEEE, Denmark.
Barnes, B., 1985. About Science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bell, D., Gray, T., and Haggett, C., 2005. The 'Social Gap' in Wind Farm Siting Decisions:
Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics 14 (4), 460–477
Boardman, B., and Darby, S., 2000. Effective Advice: Energy Efficiency and the Disadvantaged.
Oxford, UK: Environmental Change Institute.
Brandon, G., and Lewis, A., 1999. Reducing household energy consumption: a qualitative and
quantitative field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, 75-85.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., and Filius, P., 1998. Environmental communication and the cultural
politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 30 (8), 1445–1460.
Catney, P., Dobson, A., Hall, S.M., Hards, S., MacGregor, S., Robinson, Z., Ormerod, M., and
Ross, S. (2013) Community knowledge networks: an action-orientated approach to energy
research. Local Environment 18(4), 506-520.
Darby, S., 1999. Energy advice - what is it worth? Proceedings of the European Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy Summer Study.
Darby, S., 2006. Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energy-conscious village.
Energy Policy 34, 2929-2940.
Devine-Wright, P., 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place
Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 19, 426-441.
Dobson, A., 2011. Sustainability Citizenship. Dorset, UK: Green House.
Eden, S., Bear, C., Walker, G., 2008a. Understanding and (dis)trusting food assurance schemes:
consumer confidence and the ‘knowledge fix’. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 1–14.
Eden, S., Bear, C., Walker, G., 2008b. The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food
assurance. Food Policy 33, 624–630.
Faiers, A., Cook, M., and Neame, C., 2007. Towards a contemporary approach for understanding
consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use. Energy Policy 35, 4381–4390
Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. London:
MIT Press.
Green, J., Darby, S., Maby, C. and Boardman, B., 1998. Advice into action An evaluation of the
effectiveness of energy advice to low income households. Keswick: Eaga Charitable Trust
Gilchrist, A., 2009. The well connected community: A networking approach to community
development. Policy Press, London.
Hardin, R., 1996. Trustworthiness. Ethics 107(1), 26-42.
Hardin, R., 2000. Trust and Society. In: Galeotti, G., Salmon, P., and Wintrobe, R., eds.
Competition and Structure: The Political Economy of Collective Decisions: Essays in
Honor of Albert Breton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-46.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., and Burgess, J., 2008. Social experiments in sustainable consumption:
an evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-income communities. Local
Environment 13 (8), 743-758.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., and Burgess, J., 2010. Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of
how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy 38,
6111-6119.
Healey, P., 1996. Consensus-building across Difficult Divisions: new approaches to collaborative
strategy making. Planning Practice and Research 11(2), 207-216.
Healey, P., 2006. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, 2nd Edition
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hitchings, R., and Day, R., 2011. How older people relate to the private winter warmth practices
of their peers and why we should be interested. Environment and Planning A 43, 24522467
Henryson, J., Hakansson, T., Pyrko, J., 2000. Energy efficiency in buildings through information
– Swedish perspective. Energy Policy 28, 169-180.
Irwin, A., 1995. Citizen Science. Oxon: Routledge.
Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of
Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Longhurst, R., 2010. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In: Clifford, N., Valentine,
G. and French, S., eds. Key Methods in Geography, 2nd Edition. London: Sage, 103-115.
Nisbet, M., and Scheufele, D., 2009. What’s next for science communication? Promising
directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10), 1767-1778.
Nonanka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science
5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., and Teckeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ouyang, J., Hokao, K., 2009. Energy-saving potential by improving occupants’ behavior in urban
residential sector in Hangzhou City, China. Energy and Buildings 41, 711–720.
Owens, S., and Driffill, L., 2008. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of
energy. Energy Policy 36, 4412-4418.
Rose, C., 2010. How to win campaigns: communications for change. London: Earthscan.
Salmela, S., Varho, V., 2006. Consumers in the green electricity market in Finland. Energy Policy
24 (18), 3669–3683.
Smith, G., 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London: Routledge.
Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change.
Environment and Planning A 42, 1273 – 1285.
Scarborough, H. 2013. Transfer or Translation? How Knowledge Is Shared Through Social
Networks. Inaugural Lecture 16th April, Keele University.
Steg, L., 2008. Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36, 4449-4453.
Stern, P. C., and Aronson, E., 1984. Energy Use: the human dimension. New York: Freeman.
Ueno, T., Sano, F., Saeki, O., Tsuji, K., 2006. Effectiveness of an energy-consumption
information system on energy savings in residential houses based on monitored data.
Applied Energy 83, 166–183.
Upham, P., and Shackeley, S., 2006. The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in
Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for governance of renewable energy planning. Energy
Policy 34(15), 2161-2172.
Waks, L., 2011. John Dewey on Listening and Friendship in School and Society. Educational
Theory 61(2), 191-205
Walker, G., Simmons, P., Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1999. Risk communication, Public
participation and the Seveso II directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials 65, 179–190
Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilhite, H., and Ling, R., 1995. Measured energy savings from a more informative energy bill.
Energy and Buildings 22(2), 145–155.
Wood, G., and Newborough, M., 2003. Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic
appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings 35, 821–841.
Wynne, B., 1982. Rationality and ritual: the Windscale Enquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain.
Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.
Wynne, B., 1991. Knowledges in Context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1), 111121.
Wynne, B., 1992. Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of
science. Public Understanding of Science 1, 281-304.