In this article, we define the concept of "risk work," which aims to make visible working practices to assess or manage risk, in order to subject these practices to sociological critique. This article reviews and synthesizes existing published literature to identify components of risk work: (a) translating risk into different contexts, (b) minimizing risks in practice, and (c) caring in the context of risk. We argue that these three components of risk work raise important tensions for workers that have been inadequately explored in the literature to date. We propose that future research should additionally focus on practitioner subjectivity and identity in risk work. In addition, we argue that comparative research-across type of risk and different contexts-and methodological and theoretical diversity would enhance this emerging field of research.
The topic of Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) for climate geoengineering is becoming increasingly salient following the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report and the Paris Agreement. GGR is thought of as a separate category to mitigation techniques such as low-carbon supply or demand reduction, yet multiple social, ethical and acceptability concerns cut across categories. We propose moving beyond classifying climate strategies as a set of discrete categories (which may implicitly homogenize diverse technologies), toward a prioritization of questions of scale of both technology and decision-making in the examination of social and ethical risks. This is not just a theoretical issue: important questions for policy, governance and finance are raised, for instance over the future inclusion of GGR in carbon markets. We argue that the conclusions drawn about how best to categorize, govern and incentivize any strategy will depend on the framing used, because different framings could lead to very different policy recommendations being drawn. Because of this, a robust approach to developing, governing and financing GGR should pay attention first to urgent concerns regarding democracy, justice and acceptability.
This article details the application of energy justice as an analytic lens for exploring social acceptability of energy systems flexibility and governance in the UK. Drives towards the uptake of inflexible, low-carbon generation technologies are expected to generate new challenges for balancing energy supply with demand, requiring changes in network management. From the uptake of new storage technologies to shifts in practices and governance, such changes may impact on everyday energy users in a variety of ways. Drawing on data collected from deliberative workshops conducted in England, Scotland and Wales, we examine how members of the public interpret and respond to six models for governing future, more flexible energy systems. In so doing, we illustrate the value of energy justice literature in making sense of the ways citizens identify and balance concerns relating to how distributions of needs, capacities, and benefits, may shape novel forms of energy system participation. We also draw attention to the ways in which alternative discourses about fairness rooted in neoliberal understandings of market exchange may interact with and contradict more socially salient understandings of flexibility justice rooted in concern for vulnerable groups.
Energy, and its use in society, can be understood and conceptualised in multiple different ways, emphasizing different sets of values and attributes. In this paper, we examine how members of the public conceptualise energy, showing that a particularly salient frame is one of energy as a need and basic right. To orient our analysis we use the concept of framing, as rooted in sociological and psychological literature on framing effects and decision-making. The qualitative analysis draws from two UK datasets. The first consists of five focus groups (n= 37) examining public perceptions of energy transitions. The second dataset consists of four deliberative workshops (n = 46) exploring public perceptions of energy storage. We find that energy is explicitly discussed as a basic need because of its perceived role in ensuring survival, good health and a decent life. This is particularly salient when considering the wellbeing of vulnerable groups. We suggests that 'energy as a need' provides a framework for people's evaluation of proposed changes to the wider energy system including how energy is produced, consumed and governed, and discuss implications for policy and practitioners that seek to ensure low-carbon energy transitions are successful, inclusive and socially acceptable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.