78 T. E. Sutcliffe and T.

Berker

is based on their relevance for the region’s shift to a potential, future circular econ-
omy. These actors are mainly working with utilising second-hand resources in tex-
tiles, construction material, and food waste. The alternatives and the transition that
local and national policies favour, can be interpreted to be at odds with a specific
Norwegian comfort culture, which is deeply embedded in most Norwegian peo-
ple’s lives. Very high living standards, soaring levels of private consumption, and
low population density produce a challenging situation for those aspects of a circu-
lar transition that restrict current ways of consumption and are based on sharing of
resources, extending product lifetime, and reducing waste accumulation.
Politically, the Trøndelag region is committed to the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) number 12 to ensure sustainable production and con-
sumption patterns, and especially goal 12.5, which states that “[b]y 2030, substan-
tially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse”
(UN SDG, n.d.). Thus, because of the current high consumption culture in Norway
that we described, an alternative scenario is projected to reduce private consump-
tion in the county Trøndelag, but also to reach SDG number 12. The ­concept of
circular economy, which is a way to think of production and consumption as more
sustainable, is an official part of the county’s value creation strategy (Trøndelag
County, 2017) and its appurtenant action programme (Trøndelag County, 2019).
They emphasise the development of “business models for resource-efficient pro-
duction and consumption of resources. Increased utilisation of residual raw materi-
als based on product innovation and business cooperation” (Trøndelag County,
2017, S. 4). The following parts describe cases that project this contextually new
way of imagining consumption and production. However, to be noted, these cases
are ongoing projects and the results, especially pertaining to case nr. 1, have yet to
materialise.

5.1 Case 1: “Reduced Consumption Through Increased

Reuse, Repair and Redesign”

In 2019, a pilot study on the co-location of circular initiatives showed a potential for
value creation for stakeholders within the reuse, repairs, and sharing economy in
Trøndelag. It showed that a circular economy is a feasible future for the region.
However, according to the County Commissioner’s Report (2020), existing circular
initiatives are small, fragmented, and need increased knowledge to become com-
petitive. For a vanguard vision, this fragmentation is to be expected as well as the
expressed desire to become ‘competitive’ within the existing frame of reference.
A Norwegian Circular Economy? 79

The results of the pilot study were used to argue for funding of a larger project
in which FIOH assembled a network of actors interested in gathering experience
with circular economy. The application centred on competence building for the
network resulting in new activity within reuse, repairs, redesign, including a well-­
functioning network of circular business stakeholders, as well as increased demand
for circular products and services (County Commissioner Report, 2020). The proj-
ect received funding for 2 years (2020–2022). In line with FIOH’s focus on indi-
vidual consumption, the goal of the project is to reduce consumption and waste
from private dwellings in Trøndelag, and it is to strengthen the competitiveness of
actors within reuse, repairs, and design. The project’s stakeholders gathered by
FIOH are the county municipality of Trøndelag, which is facilitating the project,
the waste cluster of mid-Norway, the Trondheim public waste department (TRV),
and Trondheim municipality.
There are three main targets for this project, (1) to increase reuse, (2) to
strengthen private businesses offering repair, reuse, and redesign, and (3) to in-
crease interest and positive attitudes towards reuse, repairs, and redesign. The
­targets aim at increasing levels of reuse in Trøndelag. Its complimenting activities
are primarily focused on raising awareness through posts via blog forums and the
news media. Secondly, it is about mapping resources and stakeholders and identi-
fying potential cooperation with relevant stakeholders to forward the development
of a circular Trondheim. Moreover, stakeholders are mapped, developing concepts
and guidelines, and establishing a network. To sustain the networks, workshops
and courses along with social measures are to be held and taken. Finally, activities
aim at knowledge creation through concrete activities such as workshops, attitude
campaigns, and lectures on consumption practices.
Recently, to facilitate this network, a digital platform has been established.
Later in the project, a larger physical location in Trondheim is to host these ‘green
actors’ where resources are shared to increase the utilisation of used materials from
TRV. This location is aimed to be an important piece in the realisation of the proj-
ect’s goal of reducing consumption through more accessible resources. A challenge
for many of these smaller actors is that their businesses are conducted in addition
to their full-time job, which makes growing their operations difficult.
The application text consists mainly of references to existing plans and political
programs related to sustainability, such as commitments to climate change mitiga-
tion and fulfilment of the UN SDGs. The passages in which circular economy is
mentioned explicitly refer exclusively to private consumption in the context of a
generational shift:
80 T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

[s]ince one-two generations ago, we have gone from a circular society to a use and
discard of single-use based products. For a sustainable economy, we must return to
products that are made to last and to stimulate repairs and reuse of materials (Future
in our hands, 2020, S. 6, our translation).

Formulated as a ‘must’, the circular economy is presented not only as informed by

the past but also as a necessity for the future. According to the application text,
circular economy activities, such as repair, are only ‘forgotten’ because of the lack
of opportunity to be reminded of how easy they are:

A new generation of young people has ‘forgotten’ the values and methods around
repair, re-use and craft. Consumers that never have engaged in these activities think
that it is difficult and impossible to repair their products. But repair has to be discov-
ered! Repairing things, one often discovers that it is easy and one will most likely
engage in repair activities again. Knowledge around repair, reuse and recycling in-
creases the value of the product for the consumer. Sustainability has to be an experi-
ence! (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 2, our translation).

In the context of FIOH’s history, the re-discovery of the individual’s ability to

achieve repair contributes, first and foremost, to the desired overall reduction of
consumption. The additional value contributed by the experience of repair is em-
phasised: one does not lose the ability to buy new and better things. Instead, one
gains valuable experiences. Implicit here is the strong belief in individual experi-
ence resulting in more sustainable choices.
The application implicitly acknowledges that not every consumer good is as
easy to repair as it is claimed in the passage quoted above and that not every con-
sumer will be able to achieve every repair. Therefore, another part of the project
aims at supporting small commercial actors in the region in order to:

[…] create a network for Trøndelag’s repair and redesign professionals to contribute
to community building, concept development and knowledge exchange. Many feel
that they are small and alone in their work. (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 2, our trans-
lation)

Again, the project targets individuals, but now in a commercial context. The net-
working and capacity building supported by the project is supposed to strengthen
these actors that share the vision of a circular economy.
The future envisioned so far consists of consumers and networked private ac-
tors making a living from repair, redesign and recycling. A third party, the public
sector, is assigned the role of facilitator. A little shop offering used goods co-lo-
cated with the largest public recycling centre and driven by Trondheim’s public
A Norwegian Circular Economy? 81

waste disposal works is described as an ‘arena’ which makes it easier for consum-
ers to engage in re-use and to learn about material flows in the region (Future in
our hands, 2020, S. 1).

5.2 Case 2: ‘Reimagining’ Public Libraries

The project described in the previous section has a strong focus on individuals and
how they can be encouraged to experience repair, to make a living from repair, re-
design and recycling. Another major activity initiated by FIOH in the Trondheim
region, is in many respects similar, but assigns a much bigger role to public au-
thorities as facilitators.
Originally conceived by FIOH together with a group of students of the local
university NTNU, a development project explored the possibility of turning public
libraries into sites that offer loans for tools that are used infrequently and still
bought by most Norwegian households. These libraries, which are owned and
­operated by the municipalities, quickly embraced this opportunity to extend their
reach, and today they are operating this service which was extended to also com-
prise electric bicycles that can be used to transport bulky goods. In addition, local
libraries allow the use of more expensive equipment, such as 3D printers and sew-
ing machines, on their premises. According to the library statistics for 2019, the 37
different objects located at six different libraries were rented in 1214 instances.
This case is the second example of strong public involvement in realising
consumption-­oriented projects. But it also indicates a rather fluid process from idea
to realisation in which the involved stakeholders willingly cooperated. By building
on the libraries’ principle of renting, this newly established mandate for the library
has become a step towards attaining a specific, circular sustainable consumption
pattern within Trondheim and Trøndelag. Reimagining libraries as sites for renting
out tools come with new roles and tasks for the librarians. Initially, the infrastruc-
ture was digitally and physically designed to accommodate books, but the intro-
duction of tools has brought some difficulties. Tools cannot be booked online, yet.
One must either send an email, call, or meet in person. Despite initial system chal-
lenges, renting tools is planned to be as easy as books through the library systems.
According to our informant, a local librarian involved in the initiative, already, the
library is receiving positive feedback and reactions from people saying that they
are ‘glad and surprised’ about the services offered.
Furthermore, when asked about the role of people in a circular transition, the
informant indicated that complementary infrastructural and public involvement is
needed to ensure reducing consumption:
82 T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

I think everyone has a responsibility of course, but I think that it would be naive to
think that people will do this big job for themselves, so if Trondheim municipality and
the library facilitates, it would become easier for people to take responsibility. (Public
librarian)

In addition to FIOHs vision of circularity, visions of the future role of public librar-
ies were relevant in this case. Since the rise of digital access to an abundance of
information, libraries have increasingly been challenged to redefine their role.
Different answers exist, libraries have been cast “as a democratic instrument in a
multicultural and digital context” (Audunson, 2005), as instruments closing digital
divides (Kinney, 2010), or as a supporter of local communities (Hildreth & Sullivan,
2015). The plans of Trondheim’s public libraries participate in the search for a
feasible and desirable future. In this context, it is no coincidence that the ‘tool li-
brary’ was originally presented as part of another initiative called ‘the people’s
workshop’ (Skille, 2017), through which courses in crafts and ‘repair parties’ were
organized at libraries.

6 Norwegian Vanguard Visions of Circularity?

Summarising both cases, they share a common vision of circularity, which is

closely connected to FIOH’s programmatic goal to reduce mass consumption. The
considerable support mobilized among regional and municipal actors indicates that
FIOH’s vision of a circular future is seen as desirable and feasible by politicians
and other officials. The activities described are rooted in the overarching policy
strategies of the county and municipality, but also within a broader national agenda
that aims to make Norway a pioneer of a green, circular economy (Office of the
Prime Minister, 2019). The national government is developing a national circular
economy strategy that is projected to be finalized by the end of 2020. The approach
taken by the government is a process of dialogue and knowledge exchange with
various sectors in Norway. Both cases focus on individual awareness, values and
experiences connected to reduced consumption. Individuals learn and enact re-
duced consumption, small commercial actors are empowered to support these pro-
cesses, and public actors, finally, are assigned the role of facilitator. Coupled with
the focus on individual consumption championed by FIOH, both cases are exam-
ples of how digital and physical infrastructures play important roles in connecting
both invested stakeholders and citizens to gear production and consumption pat-
terns towards circularity. The public authorities are important facilitators in this
transition, and without them, the cases described here would be difficult to realise.
A Norwegian Circular Economy? 83

These cases and the actors involved can thus serve as important examples of learn-
ing for the Norwegian government going forward with the national strategy.
At the same time, even if the projects succeed in creating awareness and net-
works around circularity, and if the libraries manage to extend their circular activi-
ties, there is little reason to believe that the cases show that a widely shared circular
sociotechnical vision is about to immediately reduce consumption in Trondheim
and Trøndelag. Rather, we propose that our observations should be read as a de-
scription of a vanguard vision “in the making” that points in the direction of a pos-
sible, more profound sociotechnical change. Whether the currently dominant vi-
sion of continued high levels of consumption enabled by frictionless product
substitution will be replaced by a vision of more radical transformations of produc-
tion and consumption remains to be seen and will depend on a variety of factors
that are difficult to predict. However, based on our observations, we can now
­describe a specific sociotechnical imaginary, towards which FIOH and their allies
work as vanguards.
Hilgartner, who has coined the term ‘sociotechnical vanguard’, describes the
work done to create what in hindsight became the new sociotechnical imaginary of
synthetic biology as skilful coalition building based on the combination of existing
visions in new ways:

Sociotechnical vanguards seek to make futures, but (to paraphrase Marx) they cannot
make them simply as they please; they do not make them under self-selected circum-
stances, but do so using vocabularies and practices already given and transmitted
from the past. (Hilgartner, 2015, S. 50)

In this sense, the vocabularies and practices employed in the successful coalition
building driven by FIOH, as was presented above, are relevant indicators for the
shape of the sociotechnical imaginary that is aimed at.
We do not claim that the two cases from FIOH’s work with circular initiatives
that we have picked and presented here are representative of circular initiatives in
Norway. But together with the strong alignment of these cases with FIOH’s con-
sumption critique since the 1970s reveals the contours of a specific vision, in which
individuals reduce consumption through the rediscovery of lost competencies and
knowledge from a recent past, which is facilitated by regional public actors. The
vision refers to the Norwegian past in two, interrelated ways: First, it evokes the
image of a better, rural and pre-industrial world, in which people lived less alien-
ated from each other and from nature. And second, it does so by appealing to the
individual rather than arguing in social, economic or political terms. In this sense,
it is first and foremost moralizing and strongly rooted in the same protestant ethics
of individual responsibility and avoidance of waste and luxury that, according to
84 T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

Weber, characterized the ethics of early capitalists. This even longer line into the
past, connects the specific circular economy vision promoted by FIOH with funda-
mental values embedded in all institutions of a protestant country like Norway.
Against this backdrop, the coalition between the regional public sector and the
moralizing consumption critique of the FIOH flavour observed here definitely has
a potential to spread further and ultimately become a new dominant sociotechnical
imaginary.
Whether and how far the vanguard vision presented here is a specific Norwegian
or Northern European one, can be disputed. The reference to a more circular past
and the diagnosis of lost competencies that first have to be recovered to create a
more sustainable future is present in many sustainability initiatives all over the
world. The transition town movement, which started in the UK, for instance,
­explicitly referred to the more frugal production and consumption practices during
the Second World War and promoted cross-generational learning about the more
sustainable ways of the past. Neither are moralizing warnings against the alienation
of mass consumption the invention of FIOH and have a long history reaching back
to the social movements of the 1960s. In this respect, for example, a close reading
of Dammann’s book against the backdrop of Fromm’s (1976) “To have or to be”,
which was published 2 years later and influential in German-speaking countries,
would be instructive.
Despite these similarities and parallels, we still would claim that a historically
informed analysis of national (and maybe also regional) differences in how more
sustainable futures are imagined can reveal specific constellations. It is no coinci-
dence that FIOH formulated its early mass consumption critique in apolitical and
moralizing terms in protestant Norway, and it is no coincidence that local circular
economy initiatives in today’s Norway are driven by FIOH. Whether this means that
circular production and consumption will become the dominant sociotechnical
imaginary in Norway’s sustainability policies in the future is uncertain. But if it hap-
pens, in this chapter, we have contributed to an analysis of how this could happen.

References
Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital
context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61,
429–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510598562
Bocken, N., Ritala, P., Albareda, L., & Verburg, R. (Hrsg.). (2019). Innovation for sustain-
ability: Business transformations towards a better world. Springer.
Boye, E. (2019). Sirkulær framtid – om skiftet fra lineær til sirkulær økonomi (Mariboes gate
8, 0183). Framtiden i våre hender (FIVH).
A Norwegian Circular Economy? 85

County Commissioner Report. (2020). Reduced consumption through increased reuse, re-
pairs and redesign. Trøndelag county, Archive case document nr. 202000988-2. https://
opengov.360online.com/Meetings/TRFKPROD/Meetings/Details/849861?agendaItemI
d=206097&fbclid=IwAR3MOcUuc1xkpK67AqzBipYqBKfnjPu_xyvMWGjnvL5-­uQ_
TGBg5LZWBvXo. Accessed: 28 Feb 2020.
Dammann, E. (1972). Fremtiden i våre hender. Gyldendal.
Dammann, E. (Hrsg.). (1974). Ny livsstil. Om folkeaksjonen Fremtiden i våre hender.
Gyldendal.
Fratini, C. F., Georg, S., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2019). Exploring circular economy imagi-
naries in European cities: A research agenda for the governance of urban sustainabil-
ity transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 974–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.04.193
Fromm, E. (1976). Haben oder Sein. Deutsche Verlags Anstalt.
Future in our hands. (2020). Reduced consumption through increased reuse, repairs and
redesign. Application nr. 2020–0069, regional development funds, Trøndelag county.
https://opengov.360online.com/Meetings/TRFKPROD/Meetings/Details/849861?age
ndaItemId=206097&fbclid=IwAR3MOcUuc1xkpK67AqzBipYqBKfnjPu_xyvMW-
GjnvL5-­uQ_TGBg5LZWBvXo. Accessed: 8 Oct 2020.
Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics
and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31, 21–40. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2F0263276414531627
Hansen, A. B. (2007). Oppbrudd fra forbrukssamfunnet: bevegelsen Framtiden i våre hender
1974–1982 (Master’s thesis, University of Oslo). University of Oslo.
Hildreth, S., & Sullivan, M. (2015). Rising to the challenge: Re-envisioning public libraries.
Journal of Library Administration, 55, 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.201
5.1085247
Hilgartner, S. (2015). Capturing the imaginary. Vanguards, visions and the synthetic biology
revolution. In S. Hilgartner, C. Miller, & R. Hagendijk (Eds.), Science and democracy:
Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond. Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of moder-
nity. In S. Jasanoff & S. Kim (Hrsg.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imagi-
naries and the fabrication of power (S. 1–33). University Of Chicago Press.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and
nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11024-­009-­9124-­4
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (Hrsg.). (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imagi-
naries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press.
Kinney, B. (2010). The internet, public libraries, and the digital divide. Public Library
Quarterly, 29, 104–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616841003779718
Munthe, P. (2014). Økonomi i Norge. I Store Norske Leksikon. https://snl.no/Økonomi_i_
Norge. Accessed: 19 Feb 2020.
Myrvang, C. (2009). Forbruksagentene. Slik vekket de kjøpelysten. Pax Forlag.
Office of the Prime Minister. (2019). Granavolden political platform for the Norwegian
Government, formed by the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, the Liberal Party and
the Christian Democratic Party. Office of the Prime Minister. Granavolden, 17 January
2019. at https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/politisk-­plattform/id2626036/.
Accessed: 18 Feb 2020.
86 T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

Skille, A. (2017). Lån verktøy på biblioteket. https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/norges-­forste-­ve

rktoybibliotek-­1.13552546. Accessed: 2 Mar 2020.
Trøndelag County. (2017). A value creating Trøndelag. Strategy for innovation and value
creation in Trøndelag. Passed by the county council on 14 December 2017. https://www.
trondelagfylke.no/contentassets/b91afe6250b342e9b2d73dc270993796/strategy-­for-­
innovation-­and-­value-­creation-­in-­trondelag.pdf. Accessed: 8. Oct 2020.
Trøndelag County. (2019). Action Programme 2020–2021 for the strategy “value cre-
ation Trøndelag”. Adopted by the County Executive Committee on 3 December 2019.
Retrieved 6 October 2020, from https://www.trondelagfylke.no/contentassets/b91afe-
6250b342e9b2d73dc270993796/handlingsprogram-­politisk-­vedtatt-­en-­final-­13.02.20.
pdf
UN SDG. (n.d.). Sustainable development goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and
production patterns. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg12.
Accessed: 11 Mar 2020.
Vittersø, G., & Strandbakken, P. (2016). Forbruk og det grønne skiftet. In G. Vittersø,
A. Borch, K. Laitala, & P. Strandbakken (Hrsg.), Forbruk og det grønne skiftet (S. 9–24).
Novus Forlag.
Weber, M. (2005 [1905]). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Routledge clas-
sics) (2nd ed.). Routledge.
“Doing Value”: How Practices
of Assigning Meaning Influence
the Usetime of Devices

Tamina Hipp and Melanie Jaeger-Erben

Abstract
The globally increasing consumption of electronic devices is associated with
many social and ecological problems, which can be significantly reduced by
longer usetime. This paper presents a model for explaining usetime, which was
developed based on qualitative interviews with users on their use of devices,
especially mobile phones and washing machines. The model “Doing Value”
draws attention to the fact that obsolescence is not a state but a process or a
dynamic socio-technical phenomenon that is produced and constantly updated
in social practices of consuming, devaluing, re-using, re-buying and throwing
away. Central to this are constructions and attributions of meaning that relate,
on the one hand, to the devaluation of a product in use, and on the other, to
valorisation and the attribution of specialness or desirability in relation to prod-
ucts that have not yet been used or are “new”.

T. Hipp () • M. Jaeger-Erben

Department of Sociology of Technology and the Environment,
Brandenburg University of Technology, Senftenberg, Germany
e-mail: tamina.hipp@posteo.de; jaeger-erben@b-tu.de

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien 87

Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023
M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_6
88 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

1 The Socio-ecological Relevance of Long Usetimes

of Electronic Devices

According to the Federal Environment Agency, 754,751 t of e-waste can be attrib-

uted to private households in Germany alone in 2017, resulting in about 9.12 kg per
capita (Umweltbundesamt, 2019). The increasing consumption of electronics
worldwide is associated with social and environmental problems (Pérez-Belis
et al., 2015), resulting in particular from the upstream production of the devices
(Janusz-Renault, 2008; Prakash et al., 2015). Nevertheless, devices are often pur-
chased even though they are not used (Roberts et al., 2017), disposed of even
though they still work (Cooper, 2004), or used in parallel with other devices that
can perform the same functions (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019). Longer lifetimes
and usetimes, on the other hand, can conserve resources (Bartl, 2014; Cooper,
2010; Nishijima, 2017) and make a key contribution to transforming society to-
wards a circular economy (Cooper, 2005; Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2013;
Kaddoura et al., 2019). The lifetimes and usetime of consumer goods are not only
a relevant topic from a sustainability perspective, but also important for consumer
and consumer research, as is shown not least in this anthology.
The present study1 investigates how the usetime of electronic devices comes
about. The focus is placed on the context of use of the devices and the setting of
product use, and predominantly considers how a shortening of the usetime and thus
premature aging or obsolescence occurs. Obsolescence is conceptualised here not
as a state, but as a process or a dynamic socio-technical phenomenon that is pro-
duced and repeatedly updated in social practices of consuming, devaluing, re-­
using, re-buying and throwing away, etc. (Jaeger-Erben & Hipp, 2018b). Central to
this are constructions and attributions of meaning that refer, on the one hand, to the
valorisation or devaluation of a product in use, and on the other hand, to valorise
and the attribution of specialness or desirability in relation to products that have not
yet been used or are “new”.
In the following Sect. 2, the theoretical foundations of the study are presented.
A brief outline of research on usetime is followed by an excurses on practice theo-
ries as the social theory of the model developed and on the sociology of valuation,
which provides the basis for the conception of product evaluations. Section 3 out-

1
This article presents the results of Tamina Hipp’s PhD, which is supervised by Prof. Dr.
Melanie Jaeger-Erben. The PhD is part of the research group Obsolescence as a Challenge
for Sustainability, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research within
the thematic focus of Social-Ecological Research.
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 89

lines the methodological approach: Qualitative interviews with users were con-
ducted and analysed based on the grounded theory approach. In Sect. 4, the model
“Doing Value” model is presented to explain the usetime and in the following Sect.
5, possibilities for application are shown. The results are summarised and dis-
cussed in the conclusion (Sect. 6).

2 Theoretical Foundation

First, key findings of research on usetime that are particularly relevant to the pres-
ent study are outlined. This is followed by a presentation of the basics of practice
theories (Sect. 2.2) and the sociology of valuation (Sect. 2.3), as these provide the
theoretical foundation for the model developed.

2.1 Research on Usetime of Electronic Devices

In research on lifetimes and usetime of electronic devices, there are different ap-
proaches as to how these are subdivided and thus defined (Murakami et al., 2010).
In the following, usetime is understood as the phases of product acquisition, use,
and transfer (including storage) of a device by a user. Lifetime is taken to mean the
periods of use by different users of a device, adding production and “destruction”.
In the literature, various forms or types of obsolescence2 are discussed, which
limit the obsolescence of a product to an isolated factor, such as material, func-
tional or economic obsolescence. Although these categories seem to make sense
theoretically, they are rarely found in reality, since in practice it is predominantly
an interplay of various factors (Van Nes & Cramer, 2006) – which concern the
product, the user, the context of use and the setting – that lead to the end of the
usetime or to product replacement. So far, there is no model that can better repre-
sent reality in its complexity due to the interplay of different dimensions.
Many studies have shown that there are major differences between individual
product groups in terms of how long they are used on average and why they are
discarded (Cooper & Mayers, 2000; Evans & Cooper, 2010; Jaeger-Erben & Hipp,
2018a; Wieser et al., 2015). A distinction is often made between consumer elec-
tronics (“brown goods”), which are subject to shorter innovation cycles and are

2
For an overview and critical discussion of different obsolescence types, see Jaeger-Erben
et al. (2016).
90 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

often replaced even when they are still working, and household appliances (“white
goods”), which tend to be used until they become defective (Cox et al., 2013;
Knight et al., 2013).
Overall, research to date has mainly looked at decisions (e.g., regarding pur-
chase and repair) or design-for-longevity (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018), rather than
the practical use of devices in everyday life. For example, research examines the
emotions associated with the acquisition of electronic devices and shows that the
euphoria felt initially subsides after some time and the devices are used uncon-
sciously and routinely as part of everyday material arrangements (Hedman et al.,
2019).

2.2 Usetime from a Practical Theory Perspective

Theories of practice were chosen as the social theoretical basis for the study, as
they open up new perspectives for the consideration of product lifetimes and can
thus provide impulses for research on the (non-)sustainable use of electronic prod-
ucts (Jaeger-Erben, 2017). In practice theories, materiality and corporeality of be-
ing is emphasised and recognised as a component of all practices. Social practices
are set as the smallest unit of analysis and routines are embedded in social contexts
and settings that determine the meaningfulness of action across individuals (Shove
& Spurling, 2013). This conceptually and methodologically overcomes the separa-
tion between actor and structure often found in the social sciences (Schatzki et al.,
2000).
Individuals are conceived as carriers of practices that use artefacts meaningfully
and with the help of embodied competences (Reckwitz, 2002). A practice-oriented
approach emphasises that consumption is not primarily a fulfilment of objective
needs for people, but that social practices require certain types and ways of con-
sumption to be carried out (Røpke, 2009; Shove, 2007; Warde, 2005). In regard to
usetimes, questions arise about what devices are used for and how, based on what
context and setting of use, and how it comes to be that they are no longer used for
engaging in these practices. The termination of the period of use is thus not re-
garded as an individual decision of a rationally acting actor, but as the result of a
concatenation of use practices that are meaningfully related to one another and that
are embodied by actors and artefacts embedded in the corresponding settings. The
devices themselves, as well as social meanings, narratives, and competencies, take
on the function of connecting these practices over time. Nevertheless, these pat-
terns of interconnected practices are not rigid, but vary depending on different
circumstances.
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 91

2.3 Conception of Device Valuations

In the analysis of the empirical material oriented towards the open, category-­
developing approach of Grounded Theory, it became evident that a relative value of
the devices is revealed in and through the social practices. This value is often not
consciously reflected as produced and reproduced through the use of the devices.
Sociology of valuations (Kjellberg & Mallard, 2013; Krüger & Reinhart, 2017;
Lamont, 2012; Meier et al., 2016) provides the theoretical basis for reconstructing
these predominantly implicit value attributions.
In Theory of Valuation (Dewey, 1939), Dewey, a classic of the sociology of
valuation, already understood valuation as a process and conceived it as a perfor-
mative act. Value is thus conceived as produced in interaction – in contrast to eco-
nomics, which locates it in the object, or psychology, which locates it in the subject
(Arnould, 2014; Ramírez, 1999; Simmel & Frisby, 2004). In short, “[…] value
emerges from what people do” (Arnould, 2014, p. 130). The value of a device is
thus produced, reproduced, and valorised or devalued in and through the social
practices in which the device is involved or which are related to the device. The
valuations do not have to be conscious or intended by the acting subject, instead
they are produced and varied in the interaction – also in relation to context and set-
ting – with the device. To emphasise the performative character of this value as-
signment process, it will be referred to as “Doing Value” in the following. “Doing
Value” thus encompasses both the processes of emotionally grounded value attri-
bution (Krüger & Reinhart, 2016, 2017) and comparison-based evaluation (Bowker
& Star, 2000) as distinguished in the literature (Krüger & Reinhart, 2016). The
emotionally based valuation is found insofar as these valuations depend on subjec-
tive habits, on the specific context of use, on the user’s previous experiences in
dealing with other devices, and on individual manifestations of socially shared
aesthetic preferences. It is also a comparison-based evaluation, since the device is
evaluated in relation to other devices. Inherent in these value assignments is that
they have a trans-situational character: They unfold their effect across individual
moments of device use and thus across the different consumption phases. On the
one hand, value assignments are produced by the practice of use; on the other hand,
they contribute to structuring the handling of the device in the subsequent device-­
human interactions.
92 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

3 Methodological Design

A qualitative-reconstructive approach was chosen for the reconstruction of the use-

time to investigate the phenomenon with an open mind. Both the sampling and the
analysis were based on the logic of (reflexive) grounded theory (Breuer et al., 2018;
Bryant & Charmaz, 2011; Mey & Mruck, 2011; Strauss & Corbin, 1996), as this
methodology is suitable for generating theoretical concepts based on empirical ma-
terial while reflecting the researcher’s influence on the research process.
Fifteen guided in-home interviews were conducted, each lasting about 2 h, and
more are planned. The interviewees come from different social segments (age, gen-
der, social status) and live across Germany. The interviews focused on attitudes
towards consumption and handling electronic devices, as well as the equipment of
electronic devices in the household. In order to analyse the differences between
information and communications technology (ICT) and household appliances, the
use patterns of the two contrasting devices mobile phone and washing machine
were recorded. The consumption history of the interviewees was collected in order
to reconstruct how many of these devices they had already owned in their lives,
how intensively they were used and how they were acquired and passed on. This
procedure also made it possible to consider whether devices were used in parallel
or were not owned during certain phases.
After transcribing the interviews verbatim, the results were analysed according
to Grounded Theory using the analysis software ATLAS.ti. During the analysis, the
following aspects were coded, among others: the number of devices, the phases of
consumption (acquisition, use, if necessary repair and storage, passing on) and
usetime of the devices, in particular the ways of dealing with them (intensity of use,
care practices, etc.) and the handling of (partial) defects as well as reflections and
attributions of responsibility in this regard and overall the elements of the described
social practices (context of use, setting factors, materiality, competencies, con-
structs of meaning). In a further analysis step, it was coded how and by what means
the devices were assigned or denied values.

4 The Model “Doing Value”

The model “Doing Value” for explaining the usetime of electronic devices was
developed based on empirical data on the use of mobile phones and washing ma-
chines, but examples relating to the use of mobile phones will be given here in
particular; differences between the two devices will be shown in the following
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 93

Sect. 5. In the following, the complexity of the phenomenon of usetime in practice

will first be illustrated using two examples (Sect. 4.1), before parts of the model are
described in detail in subsequent subsections: The characterisation of value alloca-
tion (Sect. 4.2), the sequence of phases of use (Sect. 4.3) and equipment replace-
ment (Sect. 4.4). Figure 1 illustrates the model.

4.1 Multidimensionality of Usetime

The interviews suggest that it is usually not a specific aspect that causes a device to
become obsolete, but that various circumstances in regard to a specific context of
use lead to device replacement, as the following two case studies illustrate:

1. The smartphone of an older person was used only very selectively. In all device-­
human interactions, the device was assigned a low value. The usage practice
reflected the societal perception that smartphones were superfluous and compli-
cated. The device was now 4 years old, the battery capacity had degraded, and
the case was cracked. The wireless connections were always active, so the
­device was receiving and transmitting mobile data unintentionally. The user was
basically satisfied with the device, but interpreted the “low data volume” dis-
play that appeared 1 day as an error message from the device and not as a warn-
ing from the contract. The decisive reason for the mobile phone exchange was
the incorrect error diagnosis due to lack of knowledge and the daughter’s subse-
quent offer to give her a used device from a leading brand manufacturer, which
had previously been stored in the daughter’s drawer for some time.
2. A person in her late 30s uses her smartphone very intensively, both privately
and professionally. To maintain its functionality, she treats the device carefully.
However, the person always replaces her smartphones every 2 years to prevent
a possible device failure and to always be up-to-date with the latest application
possibilities. This usage practice shows the socially shared idea of “new is bet-
ter” and “new is reliable”. However, she replaced the last device after only
1 year because a new model of her favourite brand appeared on the market,
which promised a better photo quality. This seems particularly important to her,
as she places great value on the children’s photos she takes. She passes on her
always functioning and well-maintained sorted-out devices in her social envi-
ronment and acquires new releases.

In both examples, devices that are functioning in principle are sorted out, but not
only the material condition of the devices differs (functioning perfectly vs. only to
 94

Devaluation
used device
1 2-x

Value
Replacement
Valorise
new device
Time

Acquisition Use Give away

Acquisition Use Give away

Fig. 1 Changes in the value of devices during the consumption process. (Source: Own representation)
T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 95

a limited extent), but also the context of use. Both cases illustrate that the devices
are assigned a value that decreases during the period of use. In the first example,
the device category smartphone is attributed only a low importance, because the
device is only slightly integrated into the everyday design. In connection with this,
there is also a lack of competence in dealing with the device, which leads to a false
error diagnosis (“low data volume”) and triggers a complete devaluation of the
device. Meanwhile, the low esteem of the device is reflected in the almost indiffer-
ent attitude of the user, resulting in the device replacement being initiated by a
relative. Although the device was used for an above-average period of 4 years, a
longer period of use would have been possible if the unintended data transfer had
been restricted or the contract had been changed. However, since the discarding of
the device did not result in a new purchase, but merely brought a previously stored
device “back to life”, the device replacement can be rated as above-average in
terms of resource conservation.
In the second example, the device category smartphone is assigned a very high
value, which is shown by the strong integration of the device into the daily routine,
both professionally and privately. Due to this dependency, reliability plays a deci-
sive role, which is why device replacement is completely decoupled from actual
material functionality due to its routine and instead linked to the idea of how old a
device may be to ensure its functionality. The narrative “new is better and reliable”
thus acquires justificatory relevance for the devaluation of the device and the regu-
lar device replacement. The subsequent purchase of a new device is associated with
additional resource consumption, but passing it on to a second user does not make
the device obsolete. It could be speculated that the practice of regular replacement
was originally established through contracts that offered the user a new device on
a 2-year cycle. The two examples illustrate that the value attributed to the device in
a specific context of use is related to how long it is used.

4.2 Characterisation of Value Assignments

In principle, the reference frame for valuating a device is the range of activities
provided by the context of use. If devices are used frequently and intensively, they
are generally perceived as more important than if they are only used selectively.
The value attributed to the device is dynamic because it changes over the use-
time. It is produced, reproduced, increased or decreased by the device-human in-
teraction. Generally, there is a devaluation of the device over the course of use until
it can no longer be used according to the requirements of the context of use and is
replaced. The device is compared with other devices that seem particularly attrac-
96 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

tive or unattractive – especially if the device is still new or is soon to be replaced.

Both previously owned devices, those from friends and relatives or those commu-
nicated about in the media (advertising, product reviews, etc.) serve as a compari-
son, as illustrated here: “The camera was a bit very coarse-pixelated. When my
brother showed me that there are much better mobile phones, I was a bit envious
and said okay, now I have a very old mobile phone, now it’s good” (27 years).
The amount of effort required to use and maintain the device also plays a role in
the evaluation. For example, a reduced battery capacity can lead to a devaluation if
the additional effort for more frequent charging is perceived as a burden. On the
other hand, a long battery capacity can also add value to the current device. In ad-
dition, the attributed value also develops justification relevance for how much ef-
fort is invested in product maintenance. For example, a smartphone user refers to
the low monetary value of her mobile phone when asked how she would describe
the use of her smartphone: “Not very carefully, because it doesn’t cost me a lot of
money. Well, I don’t have an expensive mobile phone that costs 500 euros, where I
have to take out insurance for it or something. And if it is broken, then I would go
to the store and buy a new, cheap device” (34 years).
The value attributed to the device refers on the one hand to the device category
and on the other hand to the specific exemplar and can be divided into different
dimensions. These value dimensions are not clear-cut, they overlap and play a dif-
ferent role in different settings, and they are also linked to different social mean-
ings. In the analysis of the empirical data using grounded theory, numerous value
dimensions were identified in relation to smartphones and washing machines, a
selection of which is presented here, which appear to be particularly relevant for
the usetime and have already been discussed in research:

• The use value describes the suitability of the device to perform the activities
required by the context of use, such as sufficient battery capacity for intensive
mobile use.
• Usability refers to the user’s experience of how easy it is to use the device.
Usability is linked to user skills, ease of use, familiarity, and acclimatisation. In
the case of smartphones, the operating system and the size of the device play a
particularly important role. For some users, usability is decisive: “For me, it was
only important that I could handle the device.” (60 years), while others can flex-
ibly adapt to any device: “I’ve had five different ones in the last eight months,
from company X to Y and so on. Yes, I can work with anything” (51 years).
• Sign Value encompasses the symbolic meaning attributed to the device within a
specific setting, as ascribed by a social milieu. One interviewee described him-
self as follows: “One has his car, which is super important for him and is a
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 97

status symbol. I have more electronics, smartphones, laptops, and that’s where
I tend to spend my money” (35 years).
• The economic value refers on the one hand to the acquisition value and on the
other hand to the presumed sales value of the device in its current condition.
• The reliability dimension encompasses the user’s expectations of the extent to
which the appliance is usable in various situations, as here: “That it [the wash-
ing machine] seals reliably. That I know, even if I go shopping and come back,
that nothing bad awaits me” (34 years).
• Attachment encompasses the bond to the appliance category or the specific
item, as this example illustrates: “I love it [washing machine] […]. I don’t like
to part with things I like” (34 years).
• Aesthetics include design features such as shape, surface and color.
• Under the dimension of sustainability, social and environmental impacts are
summed up that are associated by the user with production, use, and disposal.

These value dimensions are preceded by the general condition of the device, as this
can set all dimensions to zero. This includes partial defects and wear and tear (e.g.,
crack in the display, reduced battery performance), as well as visual wear and tear
(scratches, rust, dents) and the defect (device cannot be used in its current state).
The interplay of these value dimensions is complex; contrary valuation tendencies
can occur both regarding different dimensions and within one dimension. The ex-
ample of usability can be used to illustrate that while familiarisation with a device
increases over the course of its usetime, which leads to a positive valuation, on the
other hand the speed of the device can also decrease due to outdated software,
which in turn impairs usability. While experienced users rate specific functions
(e.g., quality of the camera, fingerprint sensor) as more important, users with lower
skills seem to attach more importance to general functionality and usability.
Value attribution processes take place within specific settings, which include
both the meaning-giving context in which social practices take place and the sup-
ply systems, such as manufacturers, retail, power supply, services, material yard,
media, advertising (Brooks, 2015; Fine et al., 2018; Weller 2009). Thus, the setting
includes the infrastructure necessary for use, but at the same time it also functions
as a reference for valuation processes, for example due to technological innova-
tions, changing values and media-­mediated narratives. The following quote illus-
trates how, due to a lack of infrastructure, a device is not complained about because
the effort required to do so is deemed too great. “[For a complaint] the effort would
be too great for me. I would have to go to [city X] first. Then I’d have to drop it off
where I bought it. Then they would send it in. Then I wouldn’t have one. Then I’d
98 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

have to go back and pick up the phone again. And that’s where I ended up wasting
more gas than [buying a new one].” (34 years).
The context of use determines what a device is to be used for and how it is to be
used and in what way the device is integrated into everyday practice, which also
results in the dependence on the device and specific product requirements. In the
data, use as a business device and gaming in particular had a shortening effect on
the usetime.

4.3 Sequence of the Phases of Use

The rather linear division of usetime into the phases of purchase, use and give away
found in the literature can contribute little to understanding the phenomenon of
obsolescence, as the value attribution of a product is linked to product use in every-
day life. The reason for a new purchase and the choice of device does not arise out
of “nothing”, but is influenced by experience with a predecessor device. Even ini-
tial purchases are made based on experience with the use of a device of a similar
product category or because of stories from friends and ralatives and product re-
views. Furthermore, the passing on of a device is often not exclusively explained
by the device itself (e.g., total loss), but takes place relationally to a potentially new
device or its valorisation and accessibility. The possible next device thus serves as
a reference object which, in addition to the context of use, forms the basis for the
valuation of the current device. Accordingly, the usage phase is modeled as the
beginning, which creates the basis for explaining both when and how a device is
abandoned or passed on and why a new device is acquired. Figure 1 illustrates the
depreciation of the used device in parallel with the appreciation of a new device.

4.4 Device Replacement

The end of the usetime comes closer, the more the current device is devalued and a
potentially new device is valorised. The product exchange thus takes place based on
the relative appreciation or depreciation of both devices. The value gradually de-
creases on one side and increases on the other until a “tipping point” is reached, i.e.,
a decisive moment. An abrupt re-evaluation – usually devaluation – can also be
caused spontaneously by events which, for example, involve a defect in the device.
The devaluation of a device as “no longer suitable for the intended context of use” is
strongly related to usage skills. These include experience in dealing with defects and
diagnosing problems, as well as knowledge of repair options and services (Fig. 2).
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime… 99

Setting Event

Context
of use
Materials

Devaluation
used Through social practices Valorise
device of doings and sayings, new device
the value of the device
is reproduced and modified

Competences Meanings

Relational to each other

Accessibility
new device

Replacement

Use Give away Acquisition

Fig. 2 The model “Doing Value” to explain usetime. (Source: Own representation)

In most of the case studies, the users sought advice in the process of product
exchange from children, partners, parents, friends and colleagues, e.g., here: “My
secretary’s son is a master electrician, and he always does that, he also offers that
for friends, so to speak, that he looks after it” (29 years). The advice in the shop, as
well as the own research appears to be secondary to the search for quick advice
from the people around.
The decisive factor for the act of product exchange is the accessibility of a new
device, whereby the products are predominantly provided by the supply systems
(market and trade). In particular, new releases, special offers and contract options
can initiate product exchange. However, events in the private sphere, such as an
open birthday present or a discarded device from an acquaintance, can also be the
cause for a replacement. For example, one person reported that when her micro-
wave oven broke down, she waited “until a brochure came with a relatively cheap
offer” (57 years).