Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

Making energy cultures visible with situational analysis

Sarah Glück
Research Group Energy Cultures, Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045 Friedrichshafen, Lake Constance, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article introduces situational analysis a recently developed method in qualitative empirical research, which
Situational analysis enables researchers to investigate complexity, multiplicity and mess in the social study of energy. Complexity is
Complexity understood in its relation to processes of simplification, that occur in the research field, but are also produced by
Simplifications the scientists. The decision in favour of a specific method is understood as a political decision, which influences
European Union
our capacity not only to examine dominant perspectives and processes, but also to explore invisible and silenced
Energy cultures
elements, actors and positions in energy cultures. The critical question under investigation is how transformation
processes of the way we produce, use and distribute energy can be initiated that entail political as well as
scientific practices and processes in which diversity, complexity and modes of reflection are inscribed? Based on
the example of energy research governance in the European Union, the article explores how situational analysis
with its distinct mapping tools supports the researcher to debate and reflect on simplifications, complexity and
power relations, while simultaneously critically asses the problems and challenges of the method.

1. Introduction are hidden and lose their voice and agency in decision-making pro-
cesses. Unequal distributions of power and inequalities occur when
“What happens to complexity when simplifications are made?” elements are regarded as irrelevant not only occasionally but structu-
([1], p. 6) rally. Andy Stirling [3] provides a reading of power as asymmetrically
structured agency where agency is perceived as “different kinds of ca-
Almost every sphere of our lives depends in one way or the other on
pacities involved in shaping and performing (rather than controlling)
the constant flow of energy. Energy resources and technologies serve as
social action” and where asymmetries are “constituted by diverse dis-
only one side of the coin in keeping that flow running. Researchers who
tributions in many social modes, media, levels, relations, fields and
produce scientific knowledge, experts in regulating and maintaining
forms of capability” (p. 84). This understanding of power allows us to
institutions, laws and law-making processes, markets in which compa-
look at the fine-grained nuances of power. Looking at nuances, un-
nies and countries negotiate supply and demand and heterogenous user
covers processes of simplification. Why they are performed and when
practices embedded in diverse social environments are also required
they influence the capacities for other elements and actors to act. In
(this is not an exclusive list). The term Energy cultures [2] as used in
that realm the article is interested in the question, how simplifying
this article refers to sociotechnical entanglements of resources, scien-
practices and processes work, that provoke and stabilize inequalities.
tific knowledges, technologies, infrastructures, political systems, and
Annemarie Mol and John Law explore several ways in which sim-
social orders. Energy cultures are collectively constructed, established
plifications can be made (e.g., using rational schemes, scaling up and
and stabilised through diverse sets of practices and through shared
calculating risk) (2002, p.2f.). The following examples show how these
understandings of how energy is produced, distributed, used and va-
three forms of simplification are commonly used in the energy context.
lued.
First, the international energy agency (IEA) divides the world into en-
What happens when these entanglements and interdependencies of
ergy regions according to several energy parameters such as energy
social, political and technological elements are marginalised or ig-
efficiency, the share of renewables and CO² emissions [4]. These divi-
nored? Then, simplifications are at work. Indeed, simplifications are an
sions produce rational schemes in the form of reductive images of energy
essential part of everyday practices at home, in the office, in parlia-
cultures by excluding other parameters that may be equally essential
ments, in laboratories and so on. Very often they are necessary and
from other points of view. Second, Mol and Law speak about scaling up
enable us to act. However, with each simplification, decisions are made
when technologies tested in laboratories are then implemented as large-
about what elements of a phenomenon are distinctive and what are less
scale technologies (2002, p.2). In the context of the energy field, this
relevant to consider. Hence, some elements become visible and others

E-mail address: sarah.glueck@zu.de.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.030
Received 22 December 2017; Received in revised form 21 July 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018
2214-6296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Glück, S., Energy Research & Social Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.030
S. Glück
can for example involve the following questions: During the laboratory
development of wind turbines has bird protection been considered? Do
hydraulic fracturing experiments consider earthquake-prone areas? Do
developers of river-based power plant cooling systems consider long-
term changes in ecosystems? Often such questions are only posed after
implementation and after environmental regulations, nature activists or
worried communities enter the scene. Third, when these questions are
considered, the next simplifying step often taken is to calculate the risks.
The probability of an earthquake occurring is x%, the number of birds
killed by wind turbines is roughly y per year, and the average rise in
river temperatures will not exceed a level of z. By calculating risks,
uncertainties are rendered predictable based on clear and reductive
parameters that are then dispersed through media, in policy documents
and in public discourse.
This article suggests, that it is especially insightful to learn about
relations between simplifications, complexity and power, by in-
vestigating the practices and processes of the maschinery that organises
energy research in the European Union (EU). The core of the research
inquiry is exploring how EU funded scientific knowledge production
that is meant to inform energy policy-making is organised. Hence, the
emphasis given is on the interplay and the relations between scientific,
political, administrative and societal groups engaged in energy research
agenda setting, in research programmes development and their im-
plementation.
The governance of energy research policies is situated within the
continuous conflict of the EU between on the one hand the EU in-
tegration and processes of convergence and on the other hand spaces
and recognition for political, cultural, environmental and social di-
versity in Europe. Each of them has their raison d`être. Mutual aims and
consensus are essential for the EU to work, appreciation and integration
of diversity are vital for equal participation of its members.
Research policy in that regard, of which energy research is an in-
tegral part of, is surely only one example among many. But research
policy is also distinctive because it serves several purposes for the EU,
which go far beyond the funding of collaborative research projects. Out
of an open-ended list three examples are chosen, that are also pre-
dominantly used by the EU to describe the value of European wide
research funding. First, a significant part of the EU funded research is
the so-called policy-driven research. In top-down processes, research
topics follow current European political issues and are studied to inform
policies across many fields. Second, one of the EU´s main concerns is to
create jobs. In this context, following the idea of a knowledge society,
scientists render a growing labor market. Third, besides the creation of
jobs, economic growth is of equal concern and here especially applied
sciences that lead to products and patents support the EU´s growth
numbers and its international competitiveness. These specificities lead
to a complex entanglement of interests, participating actors and con-
troversies between them. Energy research presents within that situation
a unique case.
The currently proposed major reorganization of the EU´s incumbent
energy cultures, opens-up debates about the ordering and reordering of
positions, conditions, relations and hierarchies in energy research
governance. The critical questions, I will examine here are, whether the
EU is able to initiate and implement processes of transformation, that take
all relevant aspects of energy cultures into account? And do these trans-
formation processes entail political as well as scientific practices and
processes in which diversity, complexity and modes of reflection are
inscribed? The consequential assumption is, that the more energy fu-
tures are imaginable, created by as much relevant yet heterogenous
actors and the more possible ways to get there are included in discus-
sions and decision-making process, chances are rising, that our energy
cultures become more democratic, equal and sustainable in the future.
Clarke Miller et al. pose accordingly the following question: “Who
knows about energy systems, what and how do they know, and whose
knowledge counts in governing and reshaping energy futures?” ([5], p.
137).
2
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
I will therefore investigate elements, practices and actors relevant in
the situation of the governance of energy research policies in the EU.
The focus is on practices that exclude elements or actors by simplifi-
cation and on practices which are opening-up spaces for complexity. As
well as on practices which are leading to an asymmetry between actors
and elements. An asymmetry, in the actors and elements capacity to
participate in energy research policy-making and its governance and
their capacity to perform their own ambitions and inform the action of
other actors or elements. These perspectives will highlight actors who
are engaged in those practices and those who are invisibled and/or
silenced by those practices.
Against this background, this article explores how the interpretative
empirical social research method situational analysis (SA) can enable
researchers to debate and reflect on simplifications and to uncover its
relations to complexity and power. Here, I refer to processes of sim-
plifications and practices of simplifying from three different perspec-
tives. The first perspective explores the research field, the second per-
spective focuses on the researchers own simplifying practices that also
resonate in the research field, and the third perspective scrutinises the
method situational analysis for being vulnerable to simplifications.
Focus in all those perspectives is not the simplifying practice or pro-
cesses per se, but their relations with complexity and power. This focus
also entails the assumption that a range of relations between com-
plexity, simplifications and power exists and that not every simplifying
practice leads to an unequal distribution of power or neglects com-
plexity.
The next section will introduce and discuss the benefits and pro-
blems the theory-method package situational analysis entails. This
section will end with a summary, why SA was, despite its challenges
chosen as the method for the research project presented here. The
subsequent section will introduce shortly the political, historical and
social frame of the situation of energy research governance in the EU,
giving two illustrative examples of practices of simplifications. The
fourth section will then present the application of SA in research
practice. This section serves two purposes. On the one hand it describes
hands-on challenges with the method and gives directions and ideas
how those challenges can be solved. On the other hand, it is an em-
pirical section, which explores how SA enables to detect the relations
between simplifications, complexity and power in energy research
governance practices and processes in the EU. The second purpose is of
course limited due to the scope of this special issue focusing on pro-
blems and challenges with methods. Therefore, two illustrative ex-
amples where chosen, which combine different forms of reflection. The
first example concerns the role of nuclearity in the research situation
and focuses on the role of the researchers own simplifying practices and
the ambiguities arising when an element or actor is simultaneously
powerful and silenced. The second example focuses on a concrete
practice of simplification, the non-differentiation of the heterogenous
and diverse group of social sciences and humanities disciplines, which
leads to unequal capacities to participate in energy knowledge pro-
duction. The article finally ends with a conclusion reflecting on the
major lessons learned throughout the application of situational ana-
lysis, including remarks about how SA is able to make energy cultures
visible.
2. Situational analysis
Adele Clarke developed SA in the mid-1990s and early 2000s. As a
former student and colleague of Anselm Strauss, Clarke built upon later
constructivist forms of grounded theory (GT) [6]. She did so by em-
phasising the situatedness of a research inquiry [7] and by seriously
taking non-human elements into account [8]. SA draws on ideas of social
worlds and social arenas developed by [9,10]) and is grounded in the
pragmatist interactionist Chicago School; it further includes aspects of
Michel Foucault's Discourse Analysis [11] and of Gilles Deleuze and Félix
Guattari's concepts of Rizhomes and Assemblages ([12]). As tools Clarke
S. Glück
developed three mapping strategies for systematically assessing em-
pirical materials, which included situational maps, social worlds/arenas
maps and positional maps.
The theory-method package1 situational analysis emerged in vivid
times for the social sciences and for social sciences methodologies. In
the 1980s, and 1990s feminist theory, post-colonial studies and science
and technology studies (STSs) (to name only a few) pushed the agenda
of a constructivist ontology and of a methodology based on an inter-
pretative epistemology. “The interpretative turn in the social sciences”
to which situational analysis is contributing to “importantly leads us to
recognize the cultural and historical situatedness of constructions of
meaning by social agents, and the interpretations that researchers de-
velop of them” ([13], p.18). Not only who is a legitimate producer of
scientific knowledge is renegotiated but also the practices and methods
for how knowledge is produced are under scrutiny: “methods don´t just
describe social realities but also help to create them. If this is the case,
methods are always political, and this raises the question of what kinds
of social realities we want to create” [14]. For Stirling, “any broadly
democratic purpose in social research (as outside), lies […] in a never-
ending and ever-provisional struggle to reduce […] asymmetries of
agency” (2014, p.90).
In this vein, SA offers a regenerated reading of GT by developing a
distinctive approach designed to fulfil the aspirations of a constructivist,
relativist and interpretivist agenda (see [15], p. 352). In this regard, SA
can be read as a pick ´n´ mix of concepts or as a serious attempt to
address the inclusiveness, multiplicity and perspectivity of methods. My
stance is that of the latter without neglecting its shortcomings. The
following critical discussion of some of SA’s main concepts and com-
ponents is guided by an interest in how a systematic dealing with
messiness, fluidity, elusiveness and complexity could manifest in theory
and practice and in how SA creates space to critically reflect the re-
searcher's influence and own closing and simplifying practices.
2.1. Grounded theory
Corbin and Strauss [16] in their work on grounded theory highlight
the role of a central analytical category as the core of a grounded
theory. This one category is: “the category that appears to have [the]
greatest explanatory relevance and highest potential for linking all of
the other categories together” that can “explain or convey ´theoreti-
cally´ what the research is all about” (p.104). Adele Clarke takes a
critical stance on the identification of one central analytic category as
the core of GT. Looking at the case of governance of energy research in
the EU, we see that the definition if a certain group is a participating
actor of an energy related policy process can be controversially dis-
cussed where some participants see and accept collective action while
others deny it, leading to a set of invisible and silenced groups. More-
over, Actors participate in several groups of collective action, fighting
for different often contradictive aims, in different places at different
times. These contradictive logics suggest that several social processes
are at work and not one basic social process, which is guiding these
dynamics. This point is stressed by Clarke in the following statement:
“[T]he historic centring of a grounded theory of a given phenom-
enon on a single social process has been based on profoundly uni-
versalizing and essentialising assumptions of the homogeneity of
individuals and/or experiences […] Basic for whom? Basic for
what? What/whose perspectives have been ignored of given short
shrift? And why only one process?” [17, p. 24].
1
Clarke adopts the understanding of theory/methods package from Susan
Leigh Star [28] “[…] as including both epistemological and ontological as-
sumptions along with concrete practices through which a group of practitioners
can go about their work, including relating to one another and to nonhuman
entities in the situation” ([15], p. 24).
3
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Hence, Clarke defines SA as:
“[s]upplementing the traditional grounded theory root metaphor or
social process/action with an ecological root metaphor of social
worlds/arenas/negotiations/discourses as an alternative conceptual
infrastructure” ([17], p. xxxiii).
In drawing on central aspects of grounded theory (the coding
paradigm and theoretical sampling), SA’s second main criticism of GT
concerns levels of analysis. According to GT action is used as the level of
analysis while for SA, “[t]he situation per se becomes the ultimate unit
of analysis and understanding its elements and their relations is the
primary goal” ([15], p. xxv).
2.2. The situation as the level of analysis
Clarke dissolves the idea of there being a core of both a phenom-
enon and its context. She recommends instead investigating compre-
hensive situations. This concept shall serve as an alternative to a
widespread emphasis on only one level of analysis (i.e., micro, meso or
macro) while taking other levels as contexts. Context is usually un-
derstood as something that helps to investigate a social process but that
is somehow thought of as being apart from it or as influencing it se-
lectively. According to Clarke, in a given situation these levels are in-
tertwined and relevant for any specific social phenomenon. A situation
is “theorized as both an object and an ongoing process” and especially
given that it “is a gestalt greater than the sum of its parts” ([15], p. 71).
These parts consist of a set of human, non-human, political, economic,
sociocultural, temporal, and spatial elements, discourses and issues
spanning the individual (micro), organisational (meso) and societal
(macro) spheres. This collection of elements becomes a unique gestalt
due to its temporal, geographic, and cultural embeddedness. Clarke
et al. describe invisible agency as follows: “It is the momentum of the
relationality among the different elements in the situation” ([15], p. 70);
highlighted in the original).
The researcher plays an integral role in collaboratively co-con-
structing a situation with empirical data. It is essential to understand
the relationships between the researcher and his or her research si-
tuation as a complex process of mutual influence, and as a result, by
acknowledging that there is not only one situation, but several chan-
ging situations co-created by the researcher and the individual, orga-
nisational and/or societal elements, social worlds, arenas and dis-
courses encountered throughout the research process.
One of the most significant challenges resulting from this framing of
situations in the context of SA involves managing their indeterminacy.
Clarke also speaks of a seeming elusiveness ([15], P. 17) combined with
an endless possibility for change and thus the difficulties of grasping
one’s research project. Following Clarke et al. there are no fixed rules
on when and how a situation is to be empirically defined, but “when in
doubt one returns to the empirical materials” ([15], p. 17).
2.3. Maps: small theory-method packages
SA is based on the use of different mapping strategies. Each involves
the use of a small theory-method package that presents a distinct view
of a given situation. Maps accompany the researcher in every phase of a
research project. A SA research project is only completed when all three
forms of mapping are done because they only constitute in their com-
bination the different perspectives and angles of a situation needed to
meet the conditions of situatedness ([15], p. 362). The following pre-
sentation is based on the order in which different maps should be
employed in a research project. Of course, as SA in a GT manner follows
an iterative process of collecting and analysing data, maps are re-drawn
continuously.
2.3.1. Situational maps
There are three kinds of situational maps: messy situational maps,
S. Glück
Fig. 1. Situational map.
ordered situational maps and relational maps. In creating a messy si-
tuational map ([17], p. 86 ff) the researcher randomly places all relevant
elements of his or her research inquiry on a sheet of paper in no ap-
parent order; this messiness allows the researcher to observe these
elements irrespective of their positions within a given situation. This
does not involve ignoring, neglecting or downsizing hierarchies. Letting
the mind flow between these elements and thinking of as many roles an
element could play in a situation helps reveal different perspectives and
the unexpected, the unknown, and the unwanted. The following messy
situational map (Fig. 1) was created in a later stage of my own research
on energy research governance in the EU and includes over 500 ele-
ments. It is up to the researcher to decide when for example historical
discourses are all spelled out individually or are grouped under a more
comprehensive label. As one of the features of a situational map is to
function as a repository of relevant elements of a situation, I use a more
detailed version of it. The concrete practices of making a messy situa-
tional map and also the challenges when making it will be explored in
detail in section four.
In an ordered situational map ([17], p. 101), categories pertain to all
elements (e.g., individual human elements/actors; collective human
elements; actors; discursive constructions of individual and/or collec-
tive human actors; discursive constructions of non-human actors; po-
litical, economic, temporal, and spatial elements; and implicated/silent
actors). This is an open-ended list and varies based on the dynamics of
each research project. Fig. 2 shows a section of the messy situational
map shown above.
As a theoretical underpinning of situational maps Clarke focuses
also on the non-human elements, besides the human elements. This
allows to understand materialities in the form of technologies, infra-
structures, etc. as being likewise active in influencing the social order of
energy cultures. Our energy behaviour is necessarily bound to our re-
lations with energy technologies such as heating and electric systems,
cars, mobile phones, computers, etc.
From a messy situational map, a relational map ([17], p. 104 ff) can
be created by drawing lines between elements and by defining their
relations. In each relational map one element is in focus, illustrating all
of its relations to other elements. The types, characteristics and asym-
metries of such relations are captured in memos. The following example
4
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
shows relations of the element “DG energy” (Directorate General energy
of the European Commission) (Fig. 3).
A situational map in its three variations serves as a memory of
mapping processes and preserves relevant elements from each stage of
the research journey: one can rethink, revise and withdraw elements at
any time. Throughout a research project over a period lasting several
years, the research situation changes, but also the researcher’s per-
spective due to an ongoing learning process with and in the research
field. Situational maps can help to be able to keep track of these kinds of
developments over time.
2.3.2. Social worlds/arenas maps
Anselm Strauss developed an account of social worlds and social
arenas in parallel with grounded theory in the 1970s, which was cru-
cially influenced by social interactionism. It involves considering more
forms of collective (inter)action that are neither bound to a specific
scale of analysis nor to a strict form of organisation ([9], p. 126). Social
worlds can take multiple forms:
“Some worlds are small, others huge; some are international, others
are local. Some are inseparable from given spaces; others are linked
with sites but are much less spatially identifiable. Some are highly
public and publicized; others are barely visible. Some are so emer-
gent as to be barely graspable; others are well established, even well
organized. Some have relatively tight boundaries; other possess
permeable boundaries. Some are very hierarchical; some are less so
or scarcely at all” ([9], p. 121–122).
At the core, grasping a social world involves answering the fol-
lowing questions: “what are its origins, where is it now, what changes
has it undergone, and where does it seem to be moving? Is it evolving,
disintegrating, splintering, collaborating, coalescing?” ([9], p. 127).
A social world can emerge out of an institution or become an or-
ganisation; social worlds overlap one another and across arena borders.
Social worlds are to a varying degree permeable, segmented, stable and
contested; their actors most probably form part of several social worlds
and can act in different arenas, which can also imply the presence of
conflicting and opposing logic. This open-ended list exemplifies the
character of a social world as a sensitising concept.
S. Glück
Fig. 2. Ordered situational map.
Fig. 3. Relational map (element: “DG energy”).
Social arenas pertain to a specific concern and include several social
worlds that controversially discuss and negotiate the definition of
problems and solutions relating to the primary matter of a given arena.
The following map (Fig. 4) covers two social arenas: arenas of “energy
governance” and of “research governance”, which by overlapping
create a third arena of “energy research governance”. The social worlds
depicted vary in size, their borders are more or less permeable, and
some are segmented. Besides social worlds and arenas, organisations
form the third element within the map. How social worlds emerge out
of assessed empirical material is shown in more detail in Section 4.
2.3.3. Positional maps
In addition to actors, discourse is another essential element of
Clarke’s perspective. SA studies are predominantly based on discourse
materials. Additionally, a social world can be understood as “a universe
of discourses”. Clarke understands discourse as “communication of any
kind about a particular socially or culturally recognizable topic – con-
temporary and/or historical” [15, p. 219 ff]. On this basis, what posi-
tions are taken and how different positions are related to a given social
5
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
world and arena can be explored. Historical analysis can be especially
located here where practices can only be reconstructed through nar-
rative material by describing the actions of people or by understanding
documents and their content as a product of former practices. A posi-
tional map has “[t]he goal […] to represent all the major positions ar-
ticulated in the materials on their own terms. These are not the terms of the
researcher, but rather the researcher´s best efforts to grasp and re-
present the positions taken in the discourses by those who produced those
materials” ([15], p. 166), highlighted in the original). It is especially
important to not misunderstand the positions attached to a single actor.
Positional maps are designed to allow one to present an actor holding
multiple (even contradictory) positions on an issue of concern. As Fig. 5
shows, a positional map looks like a two-dimensional coordinate system
spanning dimensions of discourse in its positive and negative extremes.
It is also a tool to direct the researcher to not expressed “missing po-
sitions” (position on the lower left corner) or silenced positions (posi-
tion on the right upper corner) within a discourse.
S. Glück Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Social worlds/arenas map.

2.4. Asymmetrically structured agency in situational analysis
SA emphasises the need to analyse complexity in social research.
Complexity can be understood as differences, positionalities and per-
spectivities ([15], p. 51 ff). Perspectivity applied to social worlds/
arenas analysis means “to view the constructed world metaphorically
over the shoulders of all the actors” ([18], p. 45). In terms of actors,
Adele Clarke and Theresa Montini refer to “[...] not only those [actors]
individually and collectively “present”, articulate and committed to
action in that arena but also those implicated by actions in that arena”
([18], p. 45). Implicated actors and actants are part of a social world
and/or arenas. But they are not actively involved in negotiations of self-
presentation, neither their thoughts or identities are explored nor they
are able to “present themselves on their own terms” (Clarke et al., 2018,
p.76). Not being able to speak on their own, or not empowered to do so,
through for example an invitation by actively participating actors, often
others take the role to speak for implicated actors or actants ([27], 99).
Clarke et al. identify implicated actors taking two forms:
“First are those who are physically present but are generally si-
lenced/ignored/invisible by those in power in the social world or
arena. Second are those not physically present in a given social
world or arena but solely discursively constructed by others within

Fig. 5. Positional map.

6
S. Glück
it. […] Neither category of implicated actors is actively involved in
actual negotiations of self-representation in the social world or
arena, nor are their thoughts or opinions or identities explored […].
They are invited by those in greater power neither to participate nor
to represent themselves on their terms” ([15], p. 76).
This leads to the existence of multiple discursive constructions of
several physical present or absent actors or actants in a situation, which
makes their analysis especially challenging. But it gives the researcher a
chance to analyse the situatedness of less powerful actors in the situa-
tion; to find out how the actions of other actors affect them. To enter
this kind of analysis Clarke et al. are raising the following analytical
questions: “Whose constructions of whom/what exist? Which are taken
as “real” constructions or the ones that matter most in the situation by
the various participants? Which are contested? Whose are ignored? By
whom?” (Clarke et al. 2018, p.77). From my reading an actor or actant
doesn´t necessarily need to be invisible in all social worlds and arenas
of a situation to count as an implicated actor or actant. The just outlined
questions ask the researcher to describe the multiple discursive con-
structions of an implicated actor within a situation, to make power
relations between social worlds or also within social worlds visible.
According to Clarke et al., considering implicated actors and actants
“provides a useful means of analysing relative power in social worlds/
arenas theory. It focuses on the situatedness of less powerful actors in a
situation, and the consequences of others´ actions for them […]” ([15],
p. 76). Clarke aims not only to “turn up the volume” on implicated
actors but also to “make silences speak through […] positional maps.
Silences are complex strategies of power, very common analytically and
they can be analyzed” [19]. In contrast to highlighting the multiplicity
of positions, the positional map directs the researcher to absent posi-
tions. It is an SA strategy to engage with power relations within a si-
tuation by having missing and/or silenced positions “speak” ([15], p.
166).
2.5. Problems and challenges
Clarke's usage of social worlds/arenas theory via mapping has
raised questions on how a somewhat static map can uncover processes
and changes. For Strauss, the concept of social worlds does not only
places processes at the centre of analysis but also “puts processes in
alignment with the structural features of the particular social worlds
under scrutiny” ([9], p. 126–127). Adele Clarke et al. moreover argue
against the use of binary structural/process divisions by understanding
them as co-constitutive:
“Structures are (temporarily) frozen processes, means of relating and
organizing practices. Melting happens. All the mapping strategies […]
are simultaneously structural and processual, ultimately working
against this binary” ([15], p. 362), highlighted in the original).
Social worlds and social arenas are concepts used to investigate
social change and hence change power relations and positions
[9,15,17]. Whereas social arenas are constituted by changing multiple
social worlds concerned with a more significant and stable yet con-
troversial issue, social worlds can present intra-world differences that can
lead to the segmentation of a social world, the division of its segments
and its realignment into new social worlds over time. Yet maps them-
selves do not include features that illustrate change processes. Either
several maps must be used over a timeline or processes and changes
must be evaluated from written text. Against this background I en-
courage the reader of a map to observe it from the perspective of en-
acted situatedness. Enactment, following Law, is understood as:
“the claim that relations, and so realities and representations of
realities (or more generally absences and presences) are being
endlessly or chronically brought into being in a continuing process
of production and reproduction, and have no status, standing, or
reality outside those processes” ([14], p. 159).
7
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
This raises another controversial issue on the usage of maps. Do they
support, as visual aids, an understanding of a research project for the
reader? Social world/arena maps created during mapping as well as all
other maps are always provisional. They act more as a tool of analysis
rather than as a tool for presenting research results. This requires
careful weighing when a map supports text and renders it more com-
prehensible or when a map confuses the reader. The fact is that maps
themselves typically include more information and stories about a si-
tuation than can be told in a research paper. Maps are not self-ex-
planatory. It is risky when maps (especially when they are not outlined
in detail) are read like street maps and are taken as a simplified reality.
Maps given on paper are simplifications. However, are all maps sim-
plifications that lead to asymmetrically structured agency? Is it possible
that a form of simplification exists that attends to complexity and if this
is so how does this work? What Law and Mol want the researcher to
reflect upon is that:
“However, although it is important to be suspicious of simplification
in the modern world […], it is equally important to be suspicious of
the standard ways of reacting to these simplifications, the de-
nunciation of simplicity.” (2002, p. 4).
In line with their argument, they present a counter model applied to
the case of mapping; guiding questions posed are as follows:
“How might a [map] make room within for whatever it also ne-
cessarily leaves out, for what is not there, not made explicit? How
might a simple [map] respect complexities?” ([1], p. 6).2
Hence, it is the responsibility and challenge of the researcher to
remain open to complexities of a given situation when pursuing ana-
lysis from memoing to writing and when presenting research results.
Consequently, the aspirations of SA, to render invisible and silenced
actors and positions visible and heard, require constant reflection
throughout the research process, as:
“by the very scholarly act of representing most or all of the actors in
print, we are turning up the Volume on the less powerful actors,
empowering them in the arena. The research act is consequential. By
following a current controversy, we are feeding it. By following a
historical one, we resurrect it, giving it new life. Relativism and
reflexivity do not preempt advocacy or action on the part of those
we study – or ourselves” ([18], p. 69).
2.6. Deciding for situational analysis
At the EU level, every perspective given by an interviewee is almost
always representative of a perspective that is collectively shared. It is
basically impossible to take part in any process of EU policy-making
without being organized into a group. These groups focus on specific
interests that can reflect long-established views or that can emerge from
critical events (e.g., the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurring in
Japan, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, or the 2008 economic crisis).
Diversity is not only observed between groups’ concerns and aims but
also in their ways of organising. There are traditional representatives of
scientific and political actors like the European Science Foundation or
the European Commission and the European Parliament. Some groups
have become organisations in the form of associations, as public au-
thorities, clubs or networks. Some have gained, or lost power and im-
portance others have existed for a short time in a niche area. Some are
loosely organized, others are highly formalized with strictly regulated
access, for example the EU bodies and national ministries. In other
2
The original quote is the following: “How might a text make room within
for whatever it also necessarily leaves out, for what is not there, not made
explicit? How might a simple text respect complexities?” ([1], p. 6).
S. Glück
words, collective action is highly important when analysing processes
on the EU level. Additionally, the research field of energy research
governance is characterised, by a multitude of actors, organized in
different forms and involved in an uncountable amount of formal and
informal exchanges and power relations. Power structures are re-
presented, expressed and stabilised via multiple practices at various
places such as; policy or scientific conferences, at meetings of EU
ministers or head of states, at events in Brussels or at more informal
lunch-culture meetings. Relating practices include among others;
speeches, position papers, official documents and consultations, which
perform images of European energy cultures and futures. Moreover,
non-human elements in form of energy technologies, energy resources
and the accompanying infrastructures do play an important role, when
the EU proposes to reorder and rebuilt its incumbent energy system.
Summarising, energy research governance in the EU is characterised by
collective action, multiple and heterogenous stakeholders, various
forms of power negotiations as well as the agency of non-human ele-
ments. Those characteristics are embraced by situational analysis, for
what reason this theory-method package seemed to be most promising
for my empirical research journey. In essence, situational analysis with
its cartographic tools helped me to find spaces of negotiations, to detect
invisible and/or silenced elements and hence enabled me to draw a
broader picture of existing narratives of energy futures in the European
Union. In other words, SA opened space for complexity, by making
energy cultures visible and questioning those power structures estab-
lished through simplifications. It does so, by demanding a constant
reflection of decisions and strategies taken throughout the research
process, by the permanent request to look for more and other possible
elements, processes and relations defining the situation of inquiry and
by facilitating the means to visualize those invisible, fragmented and
ambiguous aspects.
3. Energy research governance in the EU
The European Union is rooted in energy issues. Built from the use of
coal, steel and emerging technologies of nuclear power in the 1950′s,
the EU now adopts the binding goal of realizing a 40% reduction in
emissions, a 27% share of renewable energies consumed and a 27–30%
increase in energy efficiency by the year 2030 [20]. The latest policy
programme developed by the EU is that of the “Energy Union”, which
focuses on energy security, solidarity and trust among the Member
States; on the creation of a fully integrated European energy market; on
energy efficiency; on a decarbonised economy; and on research, in-
novation and competitiveness [21]. To realize the Energy Union, the
European Commission states that this “[…] will require a fundamental
transformation of Europe´s energy system”, or more concretely, the EU
must transform its “[…] fossil fuel driven, centralized economy, based
on old technologies and business models, organized by uncoordinated
national policies, market barriers and energy isolated areas” ([21], p.
2).
Here, another practice of simplification can be exemplified in the
use of singular rather than plural forms. The European Commission
discusses Europe’s energy system as one Europe and one energy system.
Despite the simplifying effects of this approach, it is crucial to con-
tinually re-establish European integration. The narrative that we
(mostly citizens of EU Member States are the addressees) all belong to
one Europe and must collaborate to solve our common problems serves
as the foundation of most EU narratives in all policy areas. If the
question is then to transform one energy system instead of a surprising
number of energy systems of varying types, this makes it a lot easier to
communicate, refer to and confirm decisions and actions. Moreover, in
this abovementioned pervasive narrative on an attainable energy future
the economy, the energy market and technologies are dominant ele-
ments. Mol and Law explore why it is important to use the plural form
when the aim is to engage in relations between complexity and sim-
plifications: “When investigators start to discover a variety of orders
8
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
[…] then the dichotomy between simple and complex starts to dissolve.
This is because various “orderings” of similar objects, topics, fields, do
not always reinforce the same simplicities or impose the same silences”
(2002, p.7).
As noted in Energy Union priorities, “research and innovation”
serve as a cornerstone of the EU´s endeavours to transform their in-
cumbent energy cultures. From 2007 the Strategic Energy Technology
Plan (SET-Plan) has laid out directions in which the EU wishes new
technologies and energy policies to go.
“The vision is of a Europe with a thriving and sustainable economy,
with world leadership in a diverse portfolio of clean, efficient and
low carbon energy technologies as a motor for prosperity and a key
contributor to growth and jobs” ([22], p. 12).
This vision is discussed and renewed every year at a SET-Plan
conference, which celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2017. The cor-
responding report states the following in its introduction: “A radical
transformation is underway in the way energy is produced and used to
fulfil societal needs” (ibid.). Over the next 88 pages of the document the
word societal never appears again (the terms society and social are also
each mentioned only once). As a simplifying strategy the authors do not
explain or illustrate what they mean by societal needs nor do they name
any important actors, collaborations or consequences in this regard.
This strategy leads to an increase in asymmetries of agency for example
between EU policy actors and energy-related Civil Society
Organisations (CSO) or more broadly citizens’ voices. As the title of the
report rightly states, the SET-Plan is “at the heart of energy research
and innovation in Europe” and here it becomes problematic for com-
plexity to find their space. The content of the SET-Plan predetermines
all energy research agendas applied in the EU. The most relevant ex-
amples include the multiannual research framework programmes3 dating
back to the 1980s, which represent efforts of the EU´s policy-driven
research. The current Horizon 2020 programme4 will spend roughly 6
billion Euros on the societal challenge to ensure “secure, clean and ef-
ficient energy” over its seven-year period (2014–2020). Actors who are
not part of the SET-Plan are given hardly any opportunities to influence
the EU's energy research agenda-setting processes. In summary, narra-
tives on energy cultures and their transformations in the EU that
emerge, change and persist are to a large extent informed by economic
and technology-driven understandings. To create a broader under-
standing of energy cultures it is necessary to simultaneously understand
how narrow images of energy cultures and futures develop while
looking for alternative practices and narratives that are already exiting
but silenced or ignored in the dominant discourses on EU level. The
following section offers an example for each side embedded in a re-
flection of the benefits and borders of the method situational analysis.
4. Situational analysis in practice
As mentioned in the introduction this section serves a dual purpose.
On the one side it gives an insight into the practical application of SA
and its challenges and on the other side it exemplifies how SA enables
to investigate relations between practices of simplification, complexity
and power in the situation of energy research governance in the EU.
The overarching problem to be solved regarding the second purpose, is
3
In 1983 the first research framework programme (FP) was adopted by the
Council of the European Communities, with a duration from 1984-1987. By the
1990´s, the FP´s were the basis of European research policy, underpinned by a
set of rules (later also inscribed into the Union treaties) and established prac-
tices of cooperation between the EU institutions, Member States and other
programme beneficiaries [29].
4
O.J. (L347/104/20.12.2013) Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the
European parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing
Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-
2020) and repealing Decision Np 1982/2006/EC.
S. Glück
Fig. 6. Zoom into messy situational map.
how to enable the European Union not to speak any longer of one en-
ergy system that needs to be transformed, but to imagine multiple en-
ergy cultures, that are sociotechnical in nature, and which need dif-
ferent knowledges, approaches and strategies to be transformed. The
subsequent questions include the transformation of concrete practices
and processes. One way to tackle those questions, which has been
elaborated in this article is to follow practices of simplification, make
them transparent and evaluate their effects on complexity and power
relations.
In this section of the article the two purposes are intertwined, as it is
the case during the research process itself. This also shows the mutual
influence of the researcher, the method and the empirical material to
one another. Thus, the following text is combing the three perspectives
on simplifications; the simplifications made by the research field, the
researchers own simplifying practices as well as simplifications initiated
by the method situational analysis.
4.1. Working with messy situational maps: the case of the element nuclear
A situational map is typically the first thing to make when engaging
with SA. Already before the first field visit, a researcher would use such
a map to consider all elements that could be relevant to his or her in-
quiry. It is recommended that researchers keep earlier maps and com-
pare them throughout the research process. Fig. 6 presents a so-called
messy situational map in which elements are randomly arranged; it is a
zoom into the situational map previously shown in Fig. 1.
Such a map serves as a useful tool to reflect the researcher’s
knowledge and assumptions on the relations, positions and importance
of several elements. Elements are not only excluded or made invisible
by the dynamics of a situation but also by the researchers’ strategies and
decisions. Writing memos is one tool of SA used to constantly reflect the
researchers own decision process and selection criteria. Another tool is
participatory mapping, Clarke insists on group exercises among SA re-
searchers to include an external level of reflection into the mapping.
Additionally, through its messiness such a map serves as a place in
which elements can be thought of irrespective of their power positions
for a given situation. Fig. 6 shows individual and collective human
elements (natural scientists, and consumers), non-human elements
(slides, waste, and work programmes), sites (scientific conferences,
France, and sustainable energy weeks), ideas (integration, resistance,
and solidarity) and institutions (DG Energy, Council) randomly placed
next to one another.
9
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Let us follow one of these elements more closely. The element
Nuclear can be found toward the lower right of the messy situational
map. The first situational maps I created for this study did include
nuclear elements like Euratom and the myth of the atom5 based on a
historical revision of the EU´s energy cultures. In the subsequent expert
interviews nuclear and atomic energy were neglected (´no, this is not
part of our research´) or ignored. The same applies to the literature on
´sustainable energy transformations´, to discussions on scientific con-
ferences and to informal conversations between most colleagues. The
idea of nuclearity6 recedes more and more from the map during ´so-
cialisation´ in the academic and empirical fields. In other words, reverse
simplification took place. Narratives of a secure and sustainable energy
future became more and more dominant in discourses on energy
transformation. In contrast, the former powerful narrative on nuclear
energy as the motor of prosperity was veiled (secure and sustainable in
the sense of preventing nuclear power plant disasters like that occurring
in Fukushima Daiichi, Japan and the long-term accumulation of nuclear
waste). This dynamic of silencing one of the greatest forms of energy
technology is ambiguous considering the technological dominance of
energy cultures and of their transformation in EU narratives.
What was the role of the messy situational map in this case? The
situational map in this first step does not include relations and power
positions and thus helps the researcher to look at all relevant aspects
without becoming overwhelmed with entanglements of the elements
that together build a thick net that is difficult to see through. This in-
volves a kind of unravelling. As the example illustrates, it is very im-
portant to keep early maps and to compare them later on to understand
what you have learned about your situation, to understand how results
have changed during the course of your research and to reflect on that.
Second, this serves as a practical means to manage the challenge of
identifying implicated actors. In this case, it also becomes obvious that
an historical embedding of current debates around energy transforma-
tions is crucial to understanding the asymmetries at hand. This im-
pressively reveals how formerly perceived structural conditions – the
radiant future of nuclear energy supply (see [23]) – became a silenced
5
During the first years of the European Union, nuclear energy was under the
“myth of the atom” perceived as the new (opposed to coal) promising source of
“endless” energy leading to higher welfare levels within Europe.
6
I refer here to the understanding of nuclearity found by Gabriele Hecht, who
“[…] call[s] nuclearity – the process by which something comes to count as a
“nuclear” thing […]” ([30], p. 7).
S. Glück
Fig. 7. Relational map (element: “SSH”).
and rarely visible narrative within dominant discourses on sustainable
energy transformations. This raises several new questions; which actors
and social worlds have been silenced through such narratives and
which regions and groups have lost parts of their capacity to perform
and shape action and how? This absence of nuclearity should not be
misunderstood as irrelevant but as a result of it being silenced in dis-
courses on sustainable energy. In contrast, nuclear energy (research)
and its actors still assume a powerful position in energy policy-making
at the EU level. The element nuclear, the idea of nuclearity, nuclear
energy technologies and nuclear research as well as the relevant sta-
keholders are depending on which representations of energy research
governance you examine are to different degrees visible, silenced and
powerful. This example shows that processes of simplification under-
stood as the exclusion of perspectives are not only something that
happens to elements or actors with a limited capacity to enact or shape
action. Moreover, we see, how an element, actor or social world can
have different capacities and positions in decision-making processes
depending on the situation under investigation. It adds to our under-
standing of perspectivity and multiplicity, both important concepts to
allow complexity to enfold in a research project.
4.2. From relational maps to social worlds/arenas maps: the case of the
social world of EU-SSH communities
In this article I provide a special reading of the use of relational
maps and of how to create social worlds from them. Clarke supports the
researcher with questions for memos on social worlds such as the fol-
lowing. What is the work of the social world, of its obligations, and of
technologies used? How do they describe themselves, and how do they
describe other social worlds in the discourse? But there are now con-
crete suggestions how to create a social world based on your empirical
material. In the following I explore one way to solve this problem of
how to create social worlds, by the usage of a relational map. Fig. 7 is
based on the messy situational map shown in Fig. 6. The element social
sciences and humanities (SSH) is the focus of this relational map.
Thus far, more qualitative interpretative modes of knowledge pro-
duction on energy cultures have been rarely used and/or supported by
policy makers of the EU level. For example, a monitoring report on the
integration of SSH research in the research framework programme of
Horizon 2020′s societal challenge 3 entitled “secure, clean and efficient
energy” shows that of the 4% of the budget allocated to SSH partners
(total budget of challenge 3 at the time of the report is 600 million
euros), 55% is allocated to economics, business, and marketing; 30% is
10
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
allocated to law, political science and public administration; only 6% of
project partners are from the field of sociology while there is no par-
ticipation from the fields of history, anthropology, ethnology, the hu-
manities and the arts ([24], p. 26–28). SSH is an acronym widely used
in the EU research governance arena and in its discourses. Again,
practices and processes of simplification are at work. The first step of
reducing complexity here involves aggregating an unknown number of
scientific disciplines under the heading of social sciences and huma-
nities. As a second step, in the everyday practices (speaking and
writing) of actors of the energy research governance arena the ab-
breviation SSH is used, creating the illusion of the presence of one
single scientific actor. The monitoring report thus constructs a reality in
which only 12 scientific disciplines are listed under the SSH heading,
which are to various degrees engaged in energy research in the EU.
Other disciplines like: art history, literary and religious studies, lin-
guistics, human geography, communication or educational science and
many more are hardly ever spelled out in the EU energy research
governance practices. Those disciplines have no capacity to inform
decision-making process about how and what knowledge about energy
cultures are to be produced and available in the EU. This simplifying
practice can be described as forms of non-differentiation of a highly di-
vers and heterogenous group of disciplines and stakeholders of those
disciplines. The SSH element within the relational map needs therefore
to be understood as a concept that enables different actors to relate to in
various ways, creating several co-existing realities.
Before social worlds/arenas mapping can start, social worlds and
arenas relevant to a situation need to be co-constructed with empirical
material. We now explore the creation of a social world of EU-SSH
communities7 from the element SSH and its relations within the given
situation. The aim of a relational map is to determine based on data 1)
other elements that an element is related to, 2) the nature of such
connections and 3) which elements are not related ([15], p. 140). For
the creation of a social world point two is crucial, but Adele Clarke
gives no further support on possible natures of relations. This is
somehow surprising, if we look at the long lists of possible elements a
situational map can entail. This missing support lead me to an own
7
In this project the social world of EU-SSH communities has been created out
of empirical material collected between 2014 and 2017, including interviews
with scientists, staff of the General Directorate for Research and Innovation,
Net4Society members, additionally observations and documents, which mostly
relate to the reform process between framework programme seven and the
current research framework programme Horizon 2020.
S. Glück
Table 1
Types of relations found within a relational map.
Type of relation with the Elements
element SSH
Historical/sense giving Green Paper Horizon 2020, FP7, Integration, Horizon 2020, …
relation
Membership relation ALLEA (All European Academies), Universities, NCP (National Contact
Points), Net4Society (Group of SSH NCPs), …
Asymmetrical relation EU Commission, DG RTD (Directorate General Research & Innovation),
Maire Geoghegan-Quinn (former DG RTD Commissioner), Moedas
(current DG RTD Commissioner), …
Resource relation Stakeholders, policy consultation, scientific conference, reflective culture, …
open-ended list of relations.
Table 1 provides insight into relations found between the element
SSH and other elements of the relational map (Fig. 7) and how these
relations constitute the social world of EU-SSH communities. This is not
an exhaustive list and should be read as an example and glimpse of the
creation of a social world.
Due to its early trajectories this social world is not institutionalised,
but heterogenous with flexible and permeable boundaries and a wide
range of relations within the situation. It seems to be ´omnipresent´
within the situation but difficult to grasp, and it developed from having
a barely noticeable relation to energy research to being closely en-
tangled. Andy Stirling gives an answer, why it is important that social
sciences are participating in the energy research arena in the EU:
“[…] a crucial role for the social science emerges in rigorously
setting out how all these processes – like knowledge production
more generally – are inherently socially and politically situated. And
this illumination of how incumbent interests can come to dominate
the formal codification of policy knowledge, serves a very concrete
positive function. It shows how transformation in the energy sector
[…] requires knowledge that are produced demonstrably in-
dependently from incumbent interests” ([3], p. 89).
Such characteristics provide insight into complex dynamics of the
given situation but render this social world highly vulnerable to
asymmetrical structured agency. This asymmetry happens on the one
hand within the social world between different disciplines and scientific
and political actors and on the other hand between the social world of
EU-SSH communities and other social worlds, which are more stable
and institutionalised. Similarly, other social worlds can be constructed
and then synchronized in a more complex social worlds/arenas map as
shown in the following example (Fig. 8). The Figure is a zoom into the
social worlds/arenas map in Fig. 4.
Behind each social world and its segments on this map lays a similar
analytic and constitutive process as that outlined based on the example
of EU-SSH communities’ social world. All social worlds involve collective
actors. They are active within larger arenas A) concerning the research
governance in the EU (arena shown on the left side of the map), B)
concerning the energy governance in the EU (arena on the right side of
the map and C) and in their overlap with the energy research govern-
ance in the EU. Quadrangles represent organisations, which are some-
times only active in one world within an arena or whose activities cover
the activities of different social worlds. Directly relating to the social
world of EU-SSH communities are organisations of Directorate General
Research and Innovation (DG RTD) of the European Commission,
Net4Society and of NCPs responsible for the societal challenge entitled
“Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective so-
cieties” under Horizon 2020. With their different and often ambiguous
11
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Role in the social world (example)
When the Green Paper Horizon 2020 did not mention SSH funding
intended for Horizon 2020, the social world of EU-SSH communities
started to act.
Universities, National Contact Points and EU organisations such as
ALLEA wrote position papers as answers to the Green Paper to call
attention to the devastating consequences this could have on EU
research.
The EU Commission, and specifically the DG RTD, is responsible for the
legislation preparation process and the content of Horizon 2020. Once
the social world was rendered more visible the faction wrote an open
letter to then Commissioner of the DG RTD Maire Geoghegan-Quinn that
roughly 26000 scientist signed to pressure her.
Through policy consultation processes the social world can officially
influence Horizon 2020 content and through scientific conferences it can
strengthen and discuss aims and actions of the world.
role, the social world EU-SSH communities has an effect beyond its
disciplines. In challenging societal energy goals outlined by Horizon
2020 several calls8 (successively more) are made to target energy issues
through social sciences approaches and in an interdisciplinary way. In
the still ongoing development process of the social world of EU-SSH
communities, a segmentation process leads to the emergence of a social
world “SSH energy” within the arena of energy research governance
(this development process is illustrated by the two arrows and the new
emerging social world of SSH energy). With this entering of the arena of
energy research governance, actors from the EU-SSH communities now
increased their capacity to influence decision-making processes for
example regarding the SET-Plan agenda. A closing methodological re-
mark concerns the development of the social worlds/arenas map by
using arrows to signalise processes and movements happening in the
situation. A recurring point of criticism is that social worlds/arenas
maps are somewhat static, even though they are theoretically including
transformation processes. The given example in Fig. 8 thus shows how a
segmentation process in a social world, the emergence of a new world
and the subsequent interferes into new arenas and therewith new
spheres of potential influence can be analysed and illustrated with si-
tuational analysis.
5. Conclusion
“What happens to complexity when simplifications are made? Answering
this question requires a theoretical, but also an empirical and a metho-
dological, inquiry.”
([1], p. 6)
This article has attempted to give an insight into the theory-method
package of situational analysis, its qualities but also its shortcomings for
an interpretative analysis in the field of social studies of energy. As one
of the aims of situational analysis is, to embrace the complexity a re-
search situation entails, a closer look at what are the relationships be-
tween complexity, simplifications and resulting power inequalities was
examined by following the ideas of Mol and Law. Focusing on practices
of groups of collective action, the article adopted the definition of
power as asymmetrical structured agency from Stirling. The following
can be read as an open-ended list of lessons learned throughout the
application of SA on my research project, that examines the organisa-
tion of knowledge production on energy in the European Union.
8
In the work programme of the societal challenge 3 “clean, secure and effi-
cient energy” the calls LCE 31 and 32 are solely focusing on the role of SSH in
energy research, whereas the calls EE 06-09 are targeting interdisciplinary
approaches: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/
2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-energy_en.pdf (18.11.2017).
S. Glück
Fig. 8. Social worlds/arenas map zoom in.
Adele Clarke’s understanding of a situation as a basic unit of ana-
lysis covering all relevant elements of a phenomenon serves as a first
step to opening-up room for complexity. Simultaneously, the vagueness
and creation of research conditions in the first place creates several
problems for the researcher: how must one determine which elements
form part of a situation? How can one address the always provisional
nature of a changing situation and how can one inhibit one’s own
practices of simplification through such processes? First and foremost,
simplifications are an integral part of each scientific analysis but are
likewise the result of practices that exclude elements and perspectives.
To unmake processes of simplification, this requires a constant reflec-
tion of one’s own role and position within a research project.
Another condition concerns the understanding of relations and
perspectives. All relevant elements of a situation (the researcher in-
cluded) are embedded in multifaceted relations and connections that
are differently significant depending on the perspective taken. By in-
viting the researcher to take different perspectives to create space for
more complex relations to cross individual, organisational and societal
spheres, situational analysis works against processes of simplification in
illuminating hidden elements and positions.
In numerous ways SA involves searching for silenced/ignored/in-
visible elements, be they actors, processes, social worlds, positions or
other elements of the situation of inquiry. Here, the researcher is con-
fronted with the challenge to find elements that are invisible. The first
thing to learn is that elements are not invisible per se, as they are made
invisible through processes of simplification that exclude them. Hence,
to render processes of simplification transparent is a first necessary step
to prevent the execution of new concealments. This does not mean that
SA claims to find all silenced positions or hidden actors; rather, it is
always conscious of them.
Adele Clarke guides the search process through the use of carto-
graphic tools taking the form of maps used to shed light on the invisible
and to leave space for surprising changes to happen by simultaneously
guiding a systematic course of research processes. The situational map as
a material memory supports a constant reflection of the researcher’s
pre-knowledges and roles in relation to a given situation. It moreover
creates space for the unexpected and unknown within data and for
12
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
consequent questions and new directions that a research journey may
raise.
The presented reading of Clarke’s approach as a continuous process,
where from a situational map a relational map directs the researcher to
systematically investigate relations and to link such relations within
social worlds, allows for a transparent and comprehensible description
of ambiguities, contradictions, differences, positionalities, and thus
complexity of a research situation.
The prominent role of the researcher within the enfolded discussion
about the relation between simplifications and complexity and the re-
sonating power relations, puts also a lot of pressure on the researcher.
This can lead to multiple asymmetries in which a scientist can find
oneself in. In a field of unresolved tension, a researcher possesses on the
one hand side a powerful position when choosing a method but on the
other hand is assigned of various individual responsibilities within the
research process and regarding the outreach of the research results.
This part of the discussion is still an underexposed issue within SA.
Working in research groups or in SA working groups are a possibility to
deal with that issue. Another idea would be to open-up decision-making
processes in research projects to the research objects and make them to
research subjects too. Stirling offers a reflection, of what participation
modes could offer to scientific analysis, which could be further in-
tegrated in SA research projects [25].
The final concluding remarks concern the question which is implicit
in the articles title, how situational analysis makes energy cultures visible.
If we take seriously the idea of multiple energy cultures in which we
live in, then attempts of transforming them become a seemingly un-
manageable task. It foremost needs knowledge that investigates the
social orders of energy cultures in their diversity including its ambi-
guities and contradictions. Moreover, those knowledge practices need
to be able to shed light on processes of simplifications and their effects
on complexity within technologically- and economically driven narra-
tives on energy cultures in the case of the EU. SA enables to observe
such processes of simplification. The method is, as this article tried to
explore, one promising way to engage in the knowledge production
about energy cultures and make them visible.
Despite the method’s benefits the analysis also showed that
S. Glück
questioning relations between complexity and simplifications involves
questioning deeply rooted political structures. For transnational orga-
nisations such as the EU but also for nation states the constant re-
building of the image of one coherent community [26] is a main con-
cern and an integral part of governance and policy making. Remaining
receptive to complexity in a way counteracts these attempts. The
challenge is to for example develop European identities and energy
cultures that embraces diversity and difference. This aspiration should
guide the agenda of the social study of energy in the future.
Author’s note
I would like to acknowledge my debt to Matthias Klaes and Thomas
Pfister, who gave me valuable comments on my ideas and analysis of
this paper.
References
[1] Annemarie Mol, John Law, Complexities: an introduction, in: John Law,
Annemarie Mol (Eds.), Complexities. Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Duke
University Press, Durham/London, 2002.
[2] T. Pfister, M. Schweighofer, Energy cultures as sociomaterial orders of energy, in:
D. Davidson, M. Gross (Eds.), Energy and Society Handbook. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2017.
[3] A. Stirling, Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 83–95.
[4] International Energy Agency (IEA), International Energy Outlook 2017, (2017).
[5] Clarke A. Miller, Alastair Iles, Christopher Jones, The social dimensions of energy
transitions, Sci. Cult. 22 (2) (2013) 135–148.
[6] Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis, Sage, London, 2006.
[7] Donna Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature,
Routledge, New York, 1991.
[8] Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard Univeristy Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1993.
[9] A. Strauss, Social worlds, Stud. Symbolic Interact. 1 (1978) 119–128.
[10] A. Strauss, Social worlds and their segmentation processes, Stud. Symbolic Interact.
5 (1984) 123–139.
[11] Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language,
Harper, New York, 1972.
[12] Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Introduction: Rhizome. In A Thousand Plateaus:
Capitalism and Schizophrenia II, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1987,
13
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
pp. 3–25.
[13] Véronique Mottier, The interpretative turn: history, memory, and storage in qua-
litative research, Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 6 (2) (2005) Art. 33 http://www.
qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/456/972.
[14] John Law, After Method. Mess in Social Science Research, Routledge, Oxon, New
York, 2004.
[15] Adele E. Clarke, Carrie Friese, Rachel S. Washburn, Situational Analysis. Grounded
Theory After the Interpretative Turn, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, 2017.
[16] J. Corbin, A. Strauss, Basic of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, SAGE, Thousands Oaks, California, 2008.
[17] Adele E. Clarke, Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn,
SAGE, Thousands Oaks, California, 2005.
[18] Adele E. Clarke, Theresa Montini, The many faces of RU486: tales of situated
knowledges and technological contestations, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 18 (1)
(1993) 42–78.
[19] Adele E. Clarke, Situational Analysis. FAQs, 25.05.2005, (2005) http://
clarkessituationalanalysis.blogspot.de/p/clarkes-methods.html.
[20] European Council, Conclusion on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework,
Brussels. SN79/14 (2014).
[21] European Commission, Energy Union Package. A Framework Strategy for a
Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy, COM
(2015) 80 final (2015).
[22] European Commission, The Startegic Energy Technology (SET) Plan. At the Heart of
Energy Research and Innovation in Europe, Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation, 2017.
[23] G. Hecht, The Radiance of France. Nuclear Power and National Identity After World
War II, MIT Press, Cambridge, London, 2009.
[24] European Commission, Integration of Social Sciences and Humanities in Horizon
2020: Participants, Budget and Disciplines, Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation, 2015.
[25] A. Stirling, “Opening up” and “Closing down”. Power, participation, and pluralism
in the social appraisal of technology, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33 (2) (2008)
262–294.
[26] B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Verso London, New York (2016).
[27] Adele Clarke and Reiner Keller, (2014). Engaging complexities: working against
simplification as an agenda for qualitative research today. Adele Clarke in con-
versation with Reiner Keller, Forum:Qualitative Social Research15 (2), Art.1;
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs140212.
[28] S.L. Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1989.
[29] Thomas Banchoff, Institutions, inertia and European union research policy, J.
Common Mark. Stud. 40 (1) (2002) 1–21.
[30] M. Mayer, Theory Talk #64: Gabriele Hecht nuclear ontologies, De-provincializing
the cold war, and postcolonial technopolitics, Theory Talks, (2014) 14-7-2014
http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/07/theory-talk-64.html.