The Hopeful Hydrogen
Scientists Advocating Their Matter of Concern
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Trondheim, August 2012
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Humanities
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture
Siri Hall Arnøy
NTNU
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Faculty of Humanities
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture
© Siri Hall Arnøy
ISBN 978-82-471-3744-4 (printed ver.) ISBN 978-82-471-3745-1 (electronic ver.) ISSN 1503-8181
Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2012:222 Printed by NTNU-trykk
3
Preface
Thetopicofthisdissertationisa‘matterofconcern’;somethingwhichisheld togetherbyacombinationofwhatsomeoneknowsaboutitandthewaysinwhich theycareaboutit,ahybrid.Thisprefaceisalsoakindofhybrid,asitissupposedto answersomefactualquestionsaboutthedocumentthatfollows,whileatthesame timeallowingmetoexpressthewaysinwhichIcareaboutthepeoplewhohelped mewriteit.
First,theformalities:Thisdissertationconsistsofthreepapersinadditiontothe overviewpaper.ThefirstpaperiscurrentlyunderreviewinMinerva,andthesecond paperwillbesubmittedtoScience,TechnologyandHumanValues.Forthesecond paper,Ididthedocumentsearch,theinterviewsandthefieldworkthattogether makesupthedatathepaperisbasedon.KnutHoltanSørensenandIthenwrotethe papertogether.
Then,therecognitions.Scienceisatitsheartacollectiveeffort,anditgoeswithout sayingthatIcouldnothavewrittenthisdissertationwithouthelpandsupport.The DepartmentofInterdisciplinaryStudiesofCulturehasbeenagreatplacetowork.
Thecombinationofdifferenttheoreticalanddisciplinaryapproaches,andawide varietyoftopics,hasbeenajoytobeapartof.Furthermore,Ihavebeenlucky enoughtohavecolleagueswhogooutoftheirwaytobefriendlyandhavefun togetherinbetweenthehardwork.Iamgratefultoallofyou.Inparticular,Iwould like to thank Sunniva, Kristine, Stine, Elisabeth and Maggi for reading and commentingonvariousdraftstowhatintheendbecamethisthesis.Maggialso steppedinassecondaryadvisor,forwhichIamespeciallygrateful.Lastbutnotleast, Knutwasmymainadvisorthroughouttheprocess,providinganendlesssourceof ideasandfruitfuldiscussions.IdonotthinkIcanadequatelythankyouinthis preface,andhopethatthefollowing138pagesdothejob.
4
IwouldalsoliketothanktheDutchWTMCResearchSchoolforallowingmetoattend severaloftheirworkshopsandasummerschool–IamgratefultoallmyfellowPhD studentsformakingmefeelwelcome,andtocoordinators(atmytimeintheWTMC) ElsRommesandSallyWyattfortheirfriendlinessandthoroughworkinpreparingthe differentsections.Furthermore,theInstituteforTransportationStudiesatUniversity ofCalifornia,Davis,welcomedmeasaguestresearcher.Ilearnedmuchbothfrom theirseminarsandfrommoreinformaldiscussions,andwouldliketothankprofessor JoanOgdenforextendingmeaninvitetostaywiththem.
Ihavechosentonotusefullnamesfortheinformantsinthisthesis(althoughsome ofthemwillbefairlyeasytorecognizeforthosewhoknowNorwegianresearchon hydrogen).However,itgoeswithoutsayingthatwithouttheircooperation,my researchwouldnothavebeendoable.Somewentoutoftheirwaytobehelpful,and Iamverygratefulforthefriendlyandopenattitudethattheyallshowedtowardsmy requests,andforthetimetheysetaside.
Finally,Iamluckyenoughtohavehadthehelpofbothfriendsandfamilywhen workingwiththisPhD.Writingathesishasitsupsanddowns,andIamverygrateful forallthetimesyousupportedme,beitbylisteningtomyenthusiasticrecollections, orbyconvincingmethatIwassmartandcapablewhenIwasinamoredoubting
mood.Inshort,thankyouforyourwordsofencouragementandlove.
5
TableofContents
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵
ͳȋȌǣ ǫǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ
Hydrogenasafield,asanideaandasrelevant–asummaryofthepapersinthe
dissertation...11
Understandinghydrogenscience–policyinteraction...18
Themakingofahopefulhybrid...27
Methodology...34
References...42
ʹǣ ǫ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͲ Interdisciplinarityastheoryandpractice...62
Studyinghydrogenscientists...66
Towardsanewdiscipline?...68
Rhetoricswithoutsubstance?...70
Meaningfulrhetorics...73
CuriosityͲdrivenexploration?...75
ProblemͲsolvingincontext?...78
Precariousmeaning...81
Acknowledgements...83
References...83
ǣ Ǯ ǯǣ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͺ Thebriefsummerofhydrogen...86
Policyfromscience...88
6
Method...92
Theriseofhydrogeninenergypolicy:Scientists’advice?...94
From‘hydrogensociety’totheHydrogenRoad...100
Scientificadviceandpolicylearning...104
Qualityorrelevance?...108
Notes...109
References...111
ǫǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͳͷ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͳͷ Makingrelevance?ScientistͲpolicyinteraction...117
Method...121
TheRenergiProgramasRequesterofRelevance...123
Hydrogenvisions–radicalorincremental?...126
Relevanceinthemirror?...129
Fundingapplicationsaspolicyadvice...135
Notes...137
References...138
7
Chapter 1 (Overview paper): Hydrogen scientists as policymakers?
“Forseveralyears,theIEAhasbeenpresentingthecasethatanenergyrevolution, basedonwidespreaddeploymentoflowͲcarbontechnologies,isneededtotacklethe climatechangechallenge.”(InternationalEnergyAgency(IEA)2010)
Climateandenergyissuesareoftenlistedamongthemajorchallengesofourworld.
Together with descriptions of the problems at hand, it is common to see developmentofnew,moreefficienttechnologieslistedasamajorpartofthe solution(forNorwegianexamplesseee.g.ClimateforResearch.SummaryinEnglish:
Reportno.30totheStorting(2008Ͳ2009),2009,NOU2012:9Energiutredningen, 2012).Hydrogenenergyisoneoftheproposedtechnologicalanswerstotheclimate andenergyissues.Themostoptimistichydrogenvisions,likeTheHydrogenEconomy (Rifkin2002),suggestthathydrogenenergyheraldsanewepochinhumanhistory–
connectingittorenewableenergyproduction,energysecurity,localproductionand increaseddemocracy,andlastbutnotleastcleancityair:“Adecentralized,hydrogenͲ energy regime offers the hope,atleast, of connectingthe unconnected and empoweringthepowerless.Whenthathappens,wecouldentertaintheveryreal possibilityof“reglobalization,”thistimefromthebottomup,andwitheveryone participating in the process.” (Rifkin, 2002:10). The calls for scientific and technologicalsolutions,andthevisionarystatementsabouttechnologicalpotential, actualizethequestionofinwhatwaysscientistsinteractwithandshapepolitics?
ThisthesisisastudyofhowandtowhatextentNorwegianhydrogenscientists engagewithpoliticsandpolicymakerstopromotehydrogenenergy.
In his book De nasjonale strateger [The National Strategists] (Slagstad 1998), NorwegiansociologistRuneSlagstadportraysthebuildingofNorwayasamodern nationbyfollowingcentralactorsthroughthenineteenthandtwentiethcentury.
FromthegrouphetermsprofessorͲpoliticians–likeAntonMartinSchweigaard,
8
FrederikStangandOleJacobBrochͲtowhatSlagstadcallsthesocietalengineersof thepostͲWorldWarIIera,differentwaysinwhichscientistsandacademicshave playedapartinshapingNorwayisdescribed.Intheearliestcases,thelinkbetween academiaandpoliticswasmadepartlybyonepersonsuccessfullyparticipatingin bothworlds,aswasthecasewithprofessorandMPSchweigaard(Slagstad,1998:14Ͳ 15).SchweigaardservedasanMPinatimewhereparliamentonlywereinsession3 monthsevery3rdyear(thislasteduntil1869)–onepersonbeingapartofboth academiaandpoliticsmightstillbeanoptiontoday,butperhapslesssimultaneously nowthatnationalpoliticsisafullͲtimeoccupation.
Slagstad’spostWorldWarIIͲstoryisaboutscientistscooperatingcloselywithand havingtiestothepoliticalelite.MinisterofDefenseJensChr.Haugewasessentialon thepoliticalside,wishingtoputtheexpertisegainedbyscientistswhohadworkedin exileduringtheoccupationtouseinrebuildingthecountry.Withabackgroundfrom theexilegovernment’scommitteeFOTU(TheTechnicalCommitteeoftheDefense CentralCommand[ForsvaretsOverkommandos TekniskeUtvalg]),scientistslike HelmerDahlandGunnarRanderswereeagertocontributetoamodernizingof Norwegian industry and defense (Slagstad, 1998:252Ͳ253). Dahl argued that
“Regardlessofwhatkindofeconomicactivitywearerunning,inmoderntimes increasedscientificeffortwillbeprofitable”.Sciencewashowsocietycouldensure growth(Slagstad,1998:295Ͳ296).1Foranumberofyears,Randersmanagedalarger sharebyfarofthebudgetoftheNorwegianScienceandTechnologyResearch Council(NTNF)thananyoneelse(Slagstad,1998:297).Hecombinedresearchwith visionaryideasabouttheopportunitiesofferedbyaspecifictechnology–nuclear power.
Gunnar Randerswas later characterized byHauge as “a kind of czar of the developmentofnuclearenergyinNorway.[…]Whomadehimaczar?Hedidhimself
1This,andthefollowingquotesfromSlagstad1998,aremytranslations.
9
byvirtueofacombinationofqualitiesthatunfoldedinfrontofoureyes:Agifted scientistpairedwithanentrepreneurialandsocietyͲbuildinginstinct,adisrespectful, almostrudecontemptforanypracticaldifficultyandanunscientificallylargedrive.
Andlotsofhighspirits.Itwouldbeincorrecttosaythatitwasacombinationsofar unknowninnature–evenifitwasandisveryrare–butitisrighttosaythatNorway aftertheliberation,atthedawnofthenewdayandthereconstruction,wasvery receptivetothiskindofczar”(Slagstad2006).2
OnecommonpointforthetimeofprofessorͲpoliticiansandthetimeofnuclearczars isthatscientistswerealsoinvolvedwiththepublicthrougharticulatingvisionsof whatopportunitiesthenewtechnologieswerebringing.Brochwroteaboutthe telegraphthat“Electricity,thatuntilnowhadthebringingoflightningandthunderas itsmostimportantrole,isnowlikeamailmanbringingnewsfromonesideofEurope andAmericaandtotheother.”(IllustrertNyhedsbladnr1Ͳ2,1851,asquotedby Slagstad,1998:69).Randerswroteseveralbooksforthegeneralpubliconnuclear issuesarguingthatnucleartechnologyrepresentedhoperatherthandoomforthe world(Randers1946),partlyduetothetechnologymakingwaranunthinkable optionandpartlyduetotheincrediblebenefitsforpeacetimeusebothformedical scienceandenergy.“Itcannotbedeniedthatpowersupplyandconsumptionis essentialtomaterialprogress.Repeatedly,wehearalarmingmessagesaboutthe world’soilsupplyrunningdry.Thesameissaidaboutcoal.Eventhoughthese messageshavemostlybeenfalsealarms,theystillcontainareality,sincethe reservoirsofoilandcoalintheworldwithoutadoubthavealimit.[…]Itisthus reasonablethathumansfromtimetotimeaddressthequestionofwhatwillreplace thesedwindlingsupplies.Thisiswhereatomicenergyislookedto–anddoubtlessly deservedlyso”(Randers,1950:56)3.
2AsquotedbySlagstadinhisobituaryforHauge–mytranslation
3Mytranslation
10
Thelimittofossilfuels,andthehopeforadifferentfuture,isechoedbyRifkin50 yearslater:“Wefindourselvesonthecuspofanewepochinhistory,whereevery possibilityisstillanoption.Hydrogen,theverystuffofthestarsandourownsun,is nowbeingseizedbyhumaningenuityandharnessedforhumanends.Chartingthe rightcourseattheverybeginningofthejourneyisessentialifwearetomakethe greatpromiseofahydrogenageaviablerealityforourchildrenandaworthylegacy for thegenerations thatwillcomeafterus”(Rifkin, 2002:12). Comparing the statementsofRifkinandRanders,theparallelsbetweenatomicenergyinthe1950s and hydrogen energy in the 2000s are easy to make: Both were proposed technologicalsolutionstoasetofenergyͲrelatedissues.ButwhileRanderscombined theroleofscientistandtechnologicalvisionary,Rifkin’sbackgroundisineconomics andinternationalaffairs4ratherthannaturalsciences.Whiletechnologyvisionscould bedescribedasameetingpointofpoliticsandscience,scientistsapparentlydonot haveanymonopolywhenitcomestoformulatingsuchvisions.Atthesametime, whenhydrogenenergybecameanissueforpoliticsinNorwayinthe2000s,itis reasonabletoaskifandhowthescientistscontributedtothemakingofhydrogen policy.DidtheyactasprofessorͲpoliticians,shiftingbetweentheroleofscientistand theroleofpolitician,ordidtheytakeonakindofvisionmakinglikeGunnarRanders?
Ordidtheypursueotherstrategiesandpractices?
Thisthesisemploysacombinationofinterviews,fieldworkanddocumentstudiesto exploreNorwegianhydrogenpoliciesandscientists’rolesinregardstothemakingof thesepolicies.Inthefollowingsections,Igiveabriefsummaryofthepaperswhich arethemainbodyofthethesis,followedbyanoverviewofsocialsciencestudieson hydrogenenergyandatheoreticalsectionfocusedonscholarshipaddressinghow scienceandpolicyinteract.Employingthistheory,Idiscussthecommonthreadsof thepapers–whatcantheytelluswhenviewedasawhole?Finally,themethodology
4http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htmaccessed111012
11
sectionwithappendixesaddresssomeoverarchingquestionsofthemethodologyof thethesisworkasawhole.
Hydrogenasafield,asanideaandasrelevant–asummaryof thepapersinthedissertation
Thefirstpaper,Adaptablescientists?Featuresofinterdisciplinaryresearch,providesa suitablestartingpointforthediscussioninthisoverviewpaperthroughitsaddressing thefundamentalquestionsofwhatmakessomeoneahydrogenscientistandofwhat kindofsciencehydrogenscience is.Embarkingfromadefinition ofhydrogen scientistsasscientistswhosomehow–throughe.g.writingresearchpapersor newspaperfeaturearticlesorattendingconferences–haveconnectedtheirresearch to hydrogen as an energy carrier, the paper employs different theories on interdisciplinaritytosimultaneouslyexploreifinterdisciplinarityisindeedafitting labelforhydrogenscience,andwhatitmeansforthehydrogenscientiststobe involvedinaninterdisciplinaryfield.
Thepaperstartsoutwithfourhypothesesonwhatkindofinterdisciplinaryscience hydrogenscienceis,basedindifferentthreadsoftheinterdisciplinarityliterature:a discipline(inthemaking),alegitimizingrhetoricalconstruct,akindofcuriosityͲdriven bordercrossing,ortransdisciplinarysciencefocusedonproblemͲsolvingincontext.
Differencesinthebackgroundsofthehydrogenscientistsandalackofother indicators of a discipline lead to the conclusion that hydrogen science is interdisciplinaryandnotadisciplineinthemaking.Beingengagedwithhydrogenis showntohaveanobservableeffectonresearchagendas,makinghydrogenmore thanalegitimizingrhetoricalconstruct.Atthesametimehydrogenisrhetorically importantthroughitsinfluenceofscientist’sselfͲunderstanding–thescientists describeworkingwithhydrogenscienceasmeaningfulbecauseitenablesthemto helpaddressimportantchallengesforfutureenergyneedsandfortheenvironment.
Movingontothebordercrossingandtransdisciplinarysciencehypotheses,thepaper
12
showshowhydrogenscienceisconnectedtoapersonalsenseofmeaningand achieving societal relevance at the same time – while scientific curiosity is downplayedasareasontospecificallyengagewithhydrogenscience.
Whatholdshydrogensciencetogetherasafield?Thescientists’focusonmeaning suggeststhatonecornerstoneisanagreementthatworkingwithitistherightthing todo.Atthesametime,itwasmadepossiblebyfinancing,inawaythatcallstomind whatwaspointedoutbyPeterWeingart:“‘externally’definedsubjectmatters, researchproblems,andvaluesorinterestscantriggersustainedresearch”(Weingart, 2010:12).Thus,hydrogenscienceseemstobeheldtogetherthroughthecombined effortsoffundersandscientists.
Thepaperarguesthatfinancingisnottheonlywayinwhichhydrogenscienceis dependentonnonͲscientists.Throughtheconceptofhydrogen,scientistshavea platformforcommunicatingtherelevanceoftheirresearchbothtootherscientists andtononͲacademicactors.Comparinghydrogensciencewithtransdisciplinarity thushighlightswhatitmayentailforscientiststoengagewithproblemsthatthey cannotsolvewithouttheparticipationofothers:Whiletheupsideofbeingrelevantis thatsomeoneisinterestedinwhatyouaredoing,thedownsideisthatyouare dependentonthem.Transdisciplinarityimpliesthatscientistsaresimultaneously askedtoallowproblemsnotdefinedbyacademiatobetheorderingprinciplefor theirwork,andtoacceptthattheactualsolutionoftheproblemmaynotbeintheir hands.Thus,thepaperconcludes,scientistsmaygainanincreasedsenseofmeaning throughrelevance,andatthesametimefacethethreatthatthissenseofmeaning canbeundermined.
Thesecondpaper,TheRiseandFallof‘HydrogenSociety’:Scientificadviceandpolicy learning,showshow‘hydrogensociety’madeitswayintoNorwegianenergypolicy discourses, and how it after first receiving significant political attention, lost prominence.Thepolicydiscoursesaremainlyobservedthroughadocumentstudy,
13
whileacombinationofdocumentsandinterviewsareusedtoilluminatetheroleof scientificadviceintheprocess.
Hydrogenenteredgovernmentdocumentsin1997Ͳ1998inamodestwayunder headingsrelatedtoresearchandfuturetechnologyopportunities–apotentially emissionͲfreeenergycarrierthatcouldreducelocalpollution,butinafairlydistant future.Comparedtotheinternationalattentiongiventobroaderhydrogensociety scenarios–whichincludedthelocalemissionsissuebutaboveallemphasizedmore wideͲrangingvisionsofhydrogenasthebasisofanew,sustainableenergyregime–
hydrogenwasnotreallyontheradarofpolicymakersaslateas1999.Thepaper describeshowscientiststriedtointervene,bylobbyingthroughtheNorwegian Hydrogen Forum and through producing a comprehensive report titled “The hydrogensociety–anationalopportunityreview”(KvamsdalandUlleberg2000).
Theproposedhydrogensocietyscenarionowincludedbothnewrenewableenergy and–intermittently–theexploitationofNorwegiangasresources.Thislinkproved popularamongpolicymakers.Bytheendof2001,interactionbetweenscientistsand policymakershadthusproducedaNorwegianversionofhydrogensociety.Hydrogen seemedtobeestablishedasanenergycarriermostimmediatelylinkedtonatural gas,whilearenewableenergysystemwasmoreofafuturevision.Totheextentthat anexpectationwasarticulated,itwasconcernedwithnaturalgasandindustrial issues.
Thefairlybroadsupporthydrogenhadgained,ledthroughtheproductionofan OfficialNorwegianReportabouthydrogenpublishedin2004.Thecommissionbehind therapporthadmembersfromindustrial,politicalandscientificbackgrounds.While hydrogenforstationaryuseswasjudgedasbeinginthefairlydistantfuturedueto lackofenergyefficiency,thecommissionsuggestedanincreasedfocusonhydrogen researchandonhydrogenfortransportation.From2004onwards,thisunderstanding ofhydrogenbecamedominantinthemakingofhydrogenpolicies.
14
Whatwastheroleofhydrogenscientistswithrespecttothefateof‘hydrogen society’asanenergypolicyconceptinNorway,andwhatmaywelearnmore generallyconcerningtherelationshipbetweenscientistsandpolicymakers?The analyzedpolicydocumentsdisplayclearexamplesofscientificadvice,intheformof providingdescriptionsofhydrogen’spotentialasanenergycarrier,andofexisting challenges with respect todevelopingappropriatehydrogen technologies.The scientistscommunicatedaclearmessagethatthegovernmentneededtoincreaseits investmentinhydrogenR&D,whichresembleswhatSheilaJasanoff(2011)callsthe linearityͲautonomymodel.However,thecontextofthesedocuments,inparticular themakingofNorwegianOfficialReports,indicatesthatscientistsexceededthe simpleroleofadvisor.Thepaperthussuggeststhathydrogenscientistsparticipated inthemakingofbroaderenergypolicyproposals,closertowhatJasanoff(2011)calls virtuousreason.Thisvirtuousreasonwaspracticedthroughcommitteesthatwere hybrid inthesensethatthememberscamefromdifferentquarters:science, industry,publicsectorandpolicyͲmaking.Thus,scientificproposalswerenegotiated withindustrialandpublicsectorinterestsaswellaspolicyͲmakingconcerns–the adviceprovidedthroughthesehybridinstitutionswasitselfahybrid.Thereislittlein theinterviewsthatsuggestthatthehydrogenscientistsfeltuncomfortablewiththis transformationfrom,tousethetermsofBrunoLatour(2004),mattersoffactinto mattersofconcern. Rather,theywerealsoconcernedwiththevalueaspectsof hydrogenscience,thepotentialofhydrogentechnologiestocontributetoamore sustainableworld.
Thepaperconcludesthatenergypolicy,likemanyotherpolicyareas,istoocomplex to produce a lot of issues where scientific facts can be expected to settle disagreements.Thismeansthattheemphasisonqualityassurancewithrespectto scientificadvice(e.g.,Lentsch&Weingart,2011)mayhavealimitedvalidity.Or, rather,inlinewiththevirtuousreasonmodeltheissueofrelevanceneedstobe emphasized. Clearly, when hydrogen gained some popularity in energy policy
15
discourses,thiswasfacilitatedbyobservationsthathydrogenhadbecomeapriority areainmanyothercountries.AlsothelinkingͲinwithnaturalgasshouldbeseenas anefforttomakehydrogenrelevanttoparticularNorwegianenergypolicyconcerns.
Thus,ratherthanfocusingonscientificadviceasanactivityinitself,weshouldfocus morebroadlyontheinteractionbetweenscientistsandpolicymakers.Theanalysisof thesecondpaperthussuggests,first,thatthisinteractionshouldbestudiedonthe premisethatbothpartieshavesomeautonomyandpursuetheirownagendas.
Second,scientistsandpolicymakersmaybeinterdependent,atleastwithrespectto scientists’needoffundingandpolicymakers’needofscientificexpertise.Third,there is a need tostudy in greater detail the hybrid forums where scientists and policymakersinteract,andwherediversesocialinterestsmayparticipate.
Thethirdpaper,Advisingoradvocating?Fundingapplicationsaspolicyadvice, suggeststhatfundingapplicationsmaybeacaseofsuchinteraction.Thepaper analyzeshydrogenͲrelatedapplicationswhichhavesuccessfullyachievedfunding fromtheResearchCouncilofNorway(RCN)throughtheCleanEnergyfortheFuture (Renergi)program(whichfundsamajorityoflistedNorwegianhydrogenresearch projects athydrogenplattformen.no). Thefocus ofthe analysisis onhow the applicationsdescribetherelevanceoftheirprojects.Asuccessfulapplicationis requiredtoargueitsowncasenotonlyasscientificallyinteresting,butalsoassocially relevant.Whenarguingthesocietalrelevanceofanindividualproject,applicantsmay alsobeseenasarguingtherelevanceforscienceassuch,andthustheapplications maybecomeachannelforakindofpolicyadvice.
TheresearchapplicationprocessispotentiallytwoͲsided–whileitmayrepresentan opportunityforscientiststoengageinmakingsciencepolicythroughadialoguewith theresearchcouncil,itisalsoanoccasionwherescientistsmaybedisciplinedto considertheneedofbeingusefulinawaycompliantwiththewishesofthefunder.
ThepapergivesanoverviewofRenergipolicydocumentsandapplicationforms
16
beforelookingattheapplications.Therelevanceargumentsoftheapplicationsare thengroupedintofivedifferentargumentfamilies;politics(referencestoexplicitor implied political goals), environment (both general statements about the environmentandreferencestotwospecificenvironmentalissues,climateandlocal pollution),economy(argumentsaboutrelevancetothenationaleconomyand nationalinterests,aswellasmorecompanyͲorientedarguments),internationaland safety.Thefirstthreecategorieswerepresentinaround90%oftheapplications, whilethelasttwowerepresentinlessthan50%oftheapplications. Whilethe argumentsareinaccordancewiththegoalsofRenergi,thecomparisonshowsthat theRenergigoalscannotbedirectlycopiedintothetextofasuccessfulapplication–
instead,thescientistsareinvitedtotranslateextensivepolicygoalsintodefinite researchproposals.
Tomaketheirarguments,thescientistswritingtheapplicationsemployarepertoire whichresembleacombinationofthreeofPielke’s(2007)rolesforscientists interactingwithpolicy;issueadvocacy,sciencearbitrageandhonestbrokering.
Ratherthandealingwiththeserolesasmutuallyexclusive,thescientiststakeona rolewithtwomajorcomponents:ontheonehand,theypresentedtheirarguments inafashionthatproposestheirapproachastherightwaytoaddresschallenges posedbytheRCN(advocacy);ontheotherhand,theyalsodescribeproblems,either explicitlyrecognizedbytheRCNorthroughidentifyingwiderproblemcontexts, whichtheypromisetheirresearchwillcontributetosolve(arbitrage/brokering).This seamlesscombiningofelementsfromPielke’sseparatedrolesmayindicatethatthe availablerolesforscientistsinteractingwithpolicyaredependentonthesituationin whichtheinteractiontakesplace.Asuccessfulapplicationmergesadvocacyfora solutionwithpromisesofusefulnessforawidersetofproblems.
Thevariationsbetweenandwithinthecategoriesreinforcedtheimpressionthatthe goalsoutlinedbytheRCNmustbeadaptedtospecificprojectsbytheapplicants.At thesametime,thesimilaritiesbetweentheapplicationsshowthatithasbeen
17
establishedanunderstandingthatarelevantRenergiapplicationshouldargueits casewith(atleast)argumentsfromthepolitical,economicandenvironmental category.Thescientistsproposeincrementalratherthanradicalvisions:translation strategiesareappliedtoshowhowtheexistingvisionsoftheRCNcanbedeepened, broadenedorstrengthenedbythetechnologiestheapplicantsrepresent,butno alternativeoverarchingvisionispresented.Thepresentedvisionswerenotonly hydrogenvisions,attemptsatportrayinghydrogenasessentialforNorway’sfutureas an energy nation –bethatfuture founded on renewables,naturalgasora combinationofthetwo–weremoreprevalentthanreferencestoafuturehydrogen society, although the latter also were present. The paper suggests that this incrementalimprovementofexistingvisionsmaybeareflectionofakindof‘business asusual’Ͳstagefortheinvolvedtechnology–hydrogentechnologieshaveafoothold inpublicpolicydocuments,andthusrefiningexistingvisionsisamorelogicalbridging betweenaspecificproposalandpolicygoalsthananintroductionofaradically differentvision.TheserefinementsalsoworkasanemploymentofLatour’s(1987) firsttranslationstrategy,withtheresearchersjoiningwiththegoalsoftheNorwegian government,andthusprovidingargumentsforwhyhydrogenenergyresearchshould begivenpriorityincurrentsciencepolicy.Withoutarguingagainstanyotherpossible technologiesthatmayapplyforfundingfromtheRenergiprogram,hydrogenis presentedinawaythatfulfillsitsgoalof‘environmentallyfriendly,economicaland rationalmanagementofthecountry’senergyresources’(ResearchCouncilofNorway 2004)withouthavingtodecidebetweenfoundingsucharesourcemanagementon renewablesoronnaturalgasresources.Withinthefairlystrongformattingthatan applicationisexposedto,thescientistsarguethecaseofhydrogentechnology.Thus thepaperconcludesthatfundingapplicationsareusedasachannelforaspecific,not tooradical,formofpolicyadvice.
Asthissummaryofthepapersindicates,togethertheydisplayscientiststhatengaged withpolicyandpolicymakersinseveralwaysandondifferentarenas.Howmaywe
18
understandthis?Whatkindofpracticesisobserved?Thenextsectionwilloutlineand discussprevioussocialscienceresearchconcernedwithhydrogenandpertinent theoreticalperspectivesdrawnfromscienceandtechnologystudies,inorderto situateandanalyzetheengagementofscientistswithpolicyandpolicymakerswith respecttotheroleofhydrogenasanelementinNorwegianpolicy.Whatkindof lessonsmaywedrawfromthethreepaperswhenwedoacrossͲcuttinganalysis?
Understandinghydrogenscience–policyinteraction
Therearetwodifferentsetsofliteraturethatmayhelpshedlightonhowhydrogen scientistsinteractwithpolicy:previousresearchonhydrogenenergyfromanonͲ technicalperspective,andresearchconcerningthedifferentwaysinwhichscientists engagewithpolicyandtheinteractionofscienceandpolicy.Thefollowingsections giveanoverview.
Socialscienceperspectivesonhydrogen
Whatdoessocialsciencescholarshipfindinregardtohydrogenasanenergycarrier?
Whatwefindisafairlydiverseliterature,suggestingthathydrogenhasbeen approachedfromseveralsocialscienceangles. Kårstein(2005)providesageneral bibliographyofsocialscienceresearchonhydrogen,McDowallandEames(2006) givesareviewofthehydrogenfuturesliterature,andSovacoolandBrossmann(2010) employamethodologysimilartoMcDowallandEamestoidentifypapersonthe hydrogeneconomy,thusofferingasupplementtothe2006reviewinadditionto givinganaccountofthecontinuedinterestshownbyscholarstowardsthehydrogen economy.Visions,expectationsandutopiasarewellͲrepresentedthemesinthesocial scienceliteratureonhydrogen(Bakker,VanLente,andMeeus2011;vanLenteand Bakker2010;Eamesetal.2006;HodsonandMarvin2009;Hultman2009).
Severalpapersfocusonwhatthehydrogeneconomy/societyis,andwhyitmaybea goodideatoworktowardsit(GoltsovandVeziroglu2001;Bockris2002;Ogden2002;
Blanchette2008)orwhyitmaybelessofagoodideathanitmightseematfirst
19
glance(Romm2007).Relatedtothesediscussionsofthehydrogeneconomyasa potentialpoliticalgoalarewritingsonpoliciesandtransitions(BleischwitzandBader 2010;Park2011).SolomonandBanerjee(2006)giveanoverviewofhydrogenenergy researchandpolicies.Somestudiescombineaninterestinpolicywithinnovation (NerdrumandGodoe2006;Vasudeva2009;GodoeandNygaard2006),orfocusmore specificallyoninnovation(MadsenandAndersen2010),technologydiffusion(Meyer andWinebrake2009),transitionmanagement(McDowall,2011)ortechnological forecasting(Y.ͲH.Chen,Chen,andLee2011).Severalpapersaddressthehydrogen effortsandopportunitiesofspecificcountries(ÁrnasonandSigfússon2000;Murray, HugoSeymour,andPimenta2007;ZhangandCooke2010).Norwayisnoexception tothis,withthreePhDtheseswrittenaddressingrespectivelytheHyNorproject (Kårstein 2008; Kårstein 2010), the coͲevolution of technologies, markets and institutions(Nygaard2008)andthehydrogeneffortsofaspecificcompany(Koefoed 2011).Klitkou,NygaardandMeyer(2007)usescientometricstotrackthetechnoͲ sciencenetworksoffuelcellsandrelatedhydrogentechnologiesinNorway.
Somescholarsrelatehydrogenmorecloselytosustainability,ortrytoappraisethe sustainabilityandpossiblegreenhousegasemissioneffectsofhydrogen(Andrews andShabani2011;McdowallandEames2007;Doughertyetal.2009).Thiscanalso beapproachedvialifeͲcycleassessment(KarimiandFoulkes2002).Lastbutnotleast, publicunderstandingofscience(Cherrymanetal.2008;RobFlynn,Bellaby,andRicci 2009;MRicci,Bellaby,andFlynn2008)andstakeholderperspectives(Seymour, Murray,andFernandes2008)areaddressedbyseveralpapers.
Itisundoubtedlytruethat“thehydrogeneconomycontinuestoattractsignificant attention among politicians, the media, and some academics” (Sovacool &
Brossmann,2010:1999).However,whilesomeoftheaforementionedpapersfocus onenergypoliciesandtrytomakesenseoftheimplicationsofafocusonhydrogen asanenergycarrier,theysaylessabouttheinteractionbetweenscientistsand policyͲmaking.Abroadertheoreticalbackgroundisneededtoshedlightonthe
20
overarching question of this thesis: How the scientists working on hydrogen technologiesinNorwayhaveinteractedwithandcontributedtothemakingofpolicy.
PerspectivesonthescienceǦpolicyinteraction
AccordingtoJasanoff(1990:4Ͳ5),theliteratureconcerningtherelationshipofscience andgovernmenttendstomakeaconceptualdistinctionbetween“scienceinpolicy”
and“policyforscience”,asoriginallyintroducedbyHarveyBrooksinhistextThe ScientificAdviser:
“Thefirstisconcernedwithmattersthatarebasicallypoliticaloradministrativebut aresignificantlydependentontechnicalfactors–suchasthenucleartestban, disarmamentpolicy,ortheuseofscienceininternationalrelations.Thesecondis concernedwiththedevelopmentofpoliciesforthemanagementandsupportofthe nationalscientificenterpriseandwiththeselectionandevaluationofsubstantive scientificprograms”(Brooks,1964:76asquotedbyJasanoff,1990:5).
Pielke(2007)alsoobservesthatBrooks’distinctionbetweenscienceforpolicy–“the useofknowledgetofacilitateorimprovedecisionͲmaking”–andpolicyforscience–
“decisionͲmaking about how to fund or structure the systematic pursuit of knowledge”–hasbeendefininghowwethinkaboutsciencepolicy.Hecontendsthat thisreinforces“aperceptionthatscienceandpolicyareseparateactivitiesthatare subjecttomultipleinterrelations,ratherthanactivitiesthatareinsteadinextricably interconnected”(Pielke,2007:79).Thisperception,arguesPielke,willoftenleadtoan understandingofthescienceͲpolicyrelationinaccordancewiththelinearmodel:“To the extent that our thinking about science policy separates decisions about knowledge from decisions with knowledge in decisionͲmaking, it reinforces a practicalseparationofsciencefrompolicy,andimpliesthatwecanmakethesetwo typesofdecisionsindependentlyofoneanother”(Pielke,2007:79).
RatherthanunderstandingthescienceͲpolicyrelationasalwayslinear(science producesfacts,factscompelactions),Pielkecontendsthatastakeholdermodel
21
mightbemoresuitable(usersofsciencehasaroleintheproductionofscience) (Pielke,2007:13Ͳ14).Combiningdifferentconceptionsofdemocracyandscience, PielkedescribesfouridealizedpossiblerolesforscientistsindecisionͲmaking:the
‘PureScientist,’the‘IssueAdvocate,’the‘ScienceArbiter,’andthe‘HonestBroker.’
ThePureScientistischaracterizedbythefactthathe/shehasnointerestinthe decisionͲmakingprocess,butsimplywantstosharefundamentalinformationabout facts.TheIssueAdvocateischaracterizedbyhis/hertryingtolimitchoiceand convinceothersaboutaparticularchoice.TheScienceArbiterischaracterizedby his/herattempttobearesourceforthedecisionͲmaker,standingreadytoanswer factualquestionsthatthedecisionͲmakerthinksarerelevant,butnottotellthem whattoprefer.TheHonestBrokertriestoexpand(orclarify)thescopeofchoicefor decisionͲmakinginawaythatallowsforthedecisionͲmakertomakeachoicebased onhis/herownpreferencesandvalues(thisis,Pielkeholds,oftenbestachieved throughacollectionofexpertsworkingtogetherwitharangeofviews,experiences andknowledge,andnotnecessarilysomethingthatonescientistalonecanmanage).
InPielke’saccount,therearetwocriticalfactorstoconsiderwhenascientist(orany otherexpertorscientificorganization)facesadecisionabouthowtoengagewith policyandpolitics:thedegreeofvalueconsensusandthedegreeofuncertainty abouttheissueathand.AtthecoreofPielke’sargumentaboutthesetwofactorsand theemploymentofhisfourrolesistheunderstandingthat“[o]newaybeyondthe apparentlimitationsontheroleofscienceindecisionͲmakingpresentedbyconflicts overvaluesandinherentuncertaintiesistorecognizethatinsituationsofgridlock, policymakersfrequentlyneednewoptions,andnotmorescience”(Pielke,2007:140), somethingwhichimpliesthatweoftenneedmorehonestbrokers–“[e]xpandingthe optionsavailabletopolicymakersiscontrarytotheapproachmostscientistshave takeninthepolicyprocesswhentheyassociatethemselveswithaparticularpolitical agenda”(Pielke,2007:140),but“[f]ortheprotectionofscienceandtheconstructive rolethatitcanplayinpolicy,wedesperatelyneedorganizationsandindividualswho
22
arewillingtoexpandtherangeofoptionsavailabletopolicymakersbyservingas HonestBrokersofPolicyAlternatives”(Pielke,2007:141).
Pielke’sbooktriestogivescientistsadviceaboutthedifferentrolestheymaytakeon, andrepresents“anattempttoconnectscholarlyunderstandingsofscienceinsociety withthepracticalworldofscientistswhoincreasinglyfaceeverydaydecisionsabout howtopositiontheircareersandresearchinthecontextofpolicyandpolitics”
(Pielke,2007:8Ͳ9).InSTSPerspectivesonScientificGovernance,AlanIrwin(2008) givesanoverviewofsomesuchscholarlyunderstandingsofscienceinsociety,what he chooses to call scientific governance. “Characteristically, STS research into scientificgovernancehasemphasizedanumberofgeneralpoints:
x Thatknowledgecannotbeseparatedfromthecontextsofitsdevelopment, andimplementation.Instead, itshould be seenascontingent,situated, contextualized,andopentodifferentframingsandperspectives(Collinsand Pinch1998;LatourandWoolgar1979;Wynne1989)
x ThatpolicyͲmakingmustbeseenasmuchmorethanthesimpleadditionof
“values”toobjectiveexpertise(e.g.,Gonçalves,2000).Instead,theinteraction betweenpoliticsandthenaturalworldshouldbeviewedasamoreactive(if oftenimplicit)processofdefiningtheboundariesbetweenthepublicandthe private,thenatureofcitizenship,andtheroleofthestate(Jasanoff2004;
Parthasarathy2004).
x Thatclaimsto“democracy”andto“publicopinion”shouldsimilarlybeviewed in contextual and contingent themes. Rather than simply advocating
“democracy”,thequestioninsteadis“whatformofdemocracy?”and“from whoseperspective?”Equally,STSresearchhasconsideredthepoliticaland cognitiveconstraintson“democratization”(Irwin1995;Irwin2001;Hagendijk 2004;Rayner2003).
x Thatgovernanceprocessesareoftencharacterizedbyuncertainty,doubt,and indeterminacy(Beck1992;Nowotny2003;Wynne2002).Inthissituation,STS
23
researchhasemphasizedtheimportanceofpublictrustininstitutionsandthe needforpoliticalagenciestorecognizealternativeframingsofpolicydilemmas (e.g.,Zavestoskietal.,2002).
x Thatthestudyofscientificgovernanceisnotconcernedwiththeinteraction betweentwoseparateprocesses(“expertise”and“power”)butpreciselythe mannerinwhichknowledgeofthenaturalworldandpoliticalactionhave becomemutuallyembeddedandcoͲconstituted”(Irwin2008).
OftheSTSperspectivesIrwinemphasize,twoareespeciallyusefulwhenaddressing theissuesofthisoverviewpaper:thenotionofboundaryworkandtheconceptof coͲproduction.WritingabouttheU.S.ScienceAdvisoryBoard(SAB),SheilaJasanoff (1990)describeshowtheSABhas“beenabletomaintainitsscientificauthorityon theonehand,andontheothertoavoidbeinglabeledascaptivetoEPA’smission”
through“theverysuccessfulboundaryworkbywhichtheBoardanditscommittees haveheld themselves aloof fromthe appearance of makingpolicy”(Jasanoff, 1990:95).“TheSAB’sowncontributionstoboundarywork,”Jasanoffwrites,“are particularlyinevidencewhenitsadviceiscloselyrelatedtopolicy”(Jasanoff, 1990:97).OneexampleofsuchboundaryworkiswhentheSABmakesitclearthatit willonlybeinvolvedinthe“science”ofriskassessmentandnotinthe“policy”of rulemakinginregardstothedrawingupoftheSafeDrinkingWaterAct.Evenifthere, asJasanoffnotes,is“littlesupportfortheexistenceofsuchaboundaryinthe literatureonriskassessment”(Jasanoff,1990:97),drawingsuchaboundarywas clearlyausefulexercisefortheSAB.
Insomecases,accordingtoIrwin,“weappeartobediscussingamorefundamental andmutualembeddingbetweenscienceandpoliticsthantheconceptofboundary worknecessarilyconveys.InMacfarlane’sterms,‘scientificknowledgecannotbe separatedfrompoliticsandassociatedpolicies.RathertheycoͲevolveinresponseto eachother’(Macfarlane,2003:789)”(Irwin,2008:589).ThiscoͲevolutioniswhat somescholarshavetriedtodescribethroughtheidiomofcoproduction.Accordingto
24
Jasanoff,“coͲproductionisshorthandforthepropositionthatthewaysinwhichwe knowandrepresenttheworld(bothnatureandsociety)areinseparablefromthe wayswechoosetoliveinit”(Jasanoff,2004:2).Furthermore,coͲproduction“occurs alongcertainwelldocumentedpathways.Fourareparticularlysalient[...]:making identities,makinginstitutions,makingdiscoursesandmakingrepresentations.[...]
[T]oacknowledgeandbrieflydescribethese,[...]helpconnectthesciencestudies literaturetoworkonsimilartopicsinpoliticalandsocialtheory”(Jasanoff,2004:38).
Identityis“oneofthemostpotentresourceswithwhichpeoplerestoresenseoutof disorder”(Jasanoff,2004:39).CoͲproductionistaccountsoftendrawattentiontothe identityoftheexpert,butatthesametime“collectiveidentitiesarealsocontested orundernegotiationintheworkingoutofscientificandtechnologicalorders.What doesitmeantobe“European”[...],“African”[...],“intelligent”[...]oramemberofa researchcommunity,learnedprofessionordiseasegroup[...]?Andwhatrolesdo knowledgeanditsproductionplayinshapingandsustainingthesesocialrolesorin givingthempowerandmeaning?”(ibid.)Similarly, institutionsareapowerful orderinginstrumentinthedescriptionofJasanoff;“stablerepositoriesofknowledge andpower”(ibid.)thatcanbeemployedtoput“thingsintheirplacesattimesof uncertaintyanddisorder”(Jasanoff,2004:40).Equallyimportantinthecontextofthis thesis,theyalsoserveas“sitesforthetestingandreaffirmationofpoliticalculture.
[…]Whenenvironmentalknowledgechanges,forexample,newinstitutionsemerge toprovidethewebofsocialandnormativeunderstandingswithinwhichnew characterizationsofnature–whetherclimatechange,endangeredelephantsor agriculturalscience[...]–canberecognizedandgivenpoliticaleffect.Inotherpolicy settings,institutionsarerequiredtointerpretevidence,makelaw,standardize methods,disseminateknowledgeorratifynewidentities”(ibid.).Thiskindofsolving problems of order“frequentlytakes the formof producing new language or modifyingoldonessoastofindwordsfornovelphenomena,giveaccountsof experiments,persuadeskepticalaudiences,linkknowledgetopracticeoractions,
25
providereassurancestovariouspublics,andsoforth.[…]Discursivechoicesalsoform animportantelementinmostinstitutionaleffortstoshoreupnewstructuresof scientificauthority”(Jasanoff,2004:40Ͳ41).Finally,Jasanoffliststhreeaspectsof representation that have so far received attention within coͲproductionist scholarship:“[1] historical, politicalandcultural influences onrepresentational practices in science; [2] models or human agency and behavior that inform representation,especiallyinthehumanandbiologicalsciences;and[3]theuptakeof scientificrepresentationsbyothersocialactors”(Jasanoff,2004:41).
CoͲproductionisonepossibleapproachwhentryingtomakesenseofthedifferent meaningsattributedtohydrogen(science).However,therearetwootherapproaches thatalsomaybeusefulforansweringquestionsaboutwhathydrogenis.Onesuch approachisfoundinthestudyofboundaryobjects.Aboundaryobject“holds differentmeaningsindifferentsocialworlds,yetisimbuedwithenoughshared meaningtofacilitateitstranslationsacrossthoseworlds”(McSherry,2001:69as quotedbyStrathern,2007:131),it“maybeapproachedfromdifferentdirections”
(Strathern,2007:131),itis“asortofarrangementthatallow[s]differentgroupsto worktogetherwithoutconsensus”(Star,2010:602).Couldhydrogenbeacaseofone such object that is“weakly structuredin common use, and become strongly structuredinindividualͲsiteuse”(Star&Griesemer,1989:393)?
Relatedtoconsideringhydrogenasapotentialfacilitatorofcooperationwithout consensus,istherichliteratureconcerningcontroversiesandhowconsensusis reachedaboutwhatanobject(orascientificfinding)is.Fromthestudiesofthesocial constructionoftechnology(SCOT),oneanglethathasbeenemployedistofollowthe developmentalprocessofanartifact,enablingoneto“seegrowinganddiminishing degreesofstabilizationofthedifferentartifacts”(Pinch&Bijker,1987:39).Thisline ofanalysisplacesemphasisontheinterpretativeflexibilityofscientificfindings and/ortechnologies,meaningthat“scientificfindingsareopentomorethanone interpretation”upuntilaconsensusaboutthetruthemerges(ibid.p27).Social
26
mechanismsthatlimitthisinterpretativeflexibilitythusallowingtheterminatingof controversyarereferredtoasclosuremechanisms.Aftersuchaclosure,theartifact isdescribedasstabilized–theessential‘ingredients’oftheartifactaretakenfor granted(Pinch&Bijker,1987:39).
Aslightlydifferenttakeoninterpretativeflexibilityandtheclosingthereofisfoundin whatLatourdescribesastranslatinginterests:“atonceofferingnewinterpretations oftheseinterestsandchannelingpeopleindifferentdirections”(Latour,1987:117).
Translationisamatterofconnectingwithotheractors,andlinkingtheirgoalstoyour goals–eitherbyjoininginwiththeirgoals(Latour’sstrategy1),convincingthemthat theywantwhatyoualreadywant(strategy2),convincingthemtodowhatthey alreadyplantodoinaslightlydifferentway(thatcanpossiblysolvesomeother problemsontheway)(strategy3),orbycreatingnewgoals,displacinggoals,finding newgroupsofactorswithaninterestinwhatyoucanoffer(strategy4)(Latour, 1987:115Ͳ117).WhiletranslationtheorymainlyhasbeenusedtostudyhowtechnoͲ scientistscangoaboutproducingactornetworkscenteredontheirresearchresults and/ornewtechnologies,atranslationperspectivecouldalsobeemployedmore directly on the interactions of scientists with politics. Together with the coͲ productionapproach,translationtheoryunderlinesthatattheheartofstudiesof science in society – and science in politics – are questions of how science simultaneouslyhelpsshapeourworldandappearsasnonͲpolitical.Inthewordsof Jasanoff;“Publishedaccountsofscienceinpolicythusdeepentheparadoxofadvice and legitimacy, for by questioning whether technical advisers can ever be dispassionate,decisive,orvalueneutral,theycutattherootsoftheconventional justificationforscientificadvice”(Jasanoff,1990:9).
Howcanthesedifferenttakesonscienceandpolicybeusedtounderstandthedata ofthisthesis?Inthefollowing,IwillfirstemployPielke’srolesandperspectiveson scientistsprovidingpolicyadvice,combinedwithJasanoff’sconceptofboundary work,toexaminewhatkindofadvisorrolethescientiststakeon.Iwillthenexamine
27
how the concept of coͲproduction, combined with boundary object and interpretativeflexibility,cananswerthequestionofwhathydrogenscienceis.Finally, IwilluseLatour’stranslationtheorytolookathowthiscomestogether–whatkind ofpolicyadvicearethescientistsproviding?
Themakingofahopefulhybrid
Previous research on scientists giving advice to policymakers has focused on particularinstitutionsestablishedforthispurpose(seee.g.LentschandWeingart 2011).Inmystudy,scientistsusedavarietyofchannels.Theyweremembersof commissionsdraftingwhitepapers;theytookpartinestablishinganinterestgroup;
theywrotenewspaperarticlesandspokeatmeetingsintheparliament,andtheir fundingapplicationsprovidedaformofpolicyadvice.Furthermore,theyhadafairly broadrepertoireofargumentsthattheybroughtto thetable. Hydrogenwas connected toenvironmentalissueslikeclimatechange and local pollution; to industrialpolicyissueslikedomesticuseofnaturalgasandthedevelopmentof technologyforpotentialexport;topolicygoalsasformulatedinotherenergypolicy documents;andtothepoliciesofothercountriesandinternationalorganizations withasuggestionthatNorwegianpolicyneededtokeepupwiththeinternational developmentrelatedtohydrogen.Thescientistsappearedascompetentpolicy actors,andtheyusedthiscompetencetosimultaneouslyadvocatetheexpansionof hydrogenscienceandtopromoteanunderstandingamongstpolicymakersforthe needforhydrogeninthedevelopmentofa–hopefullysustainable–Norwegian society.
Howcanweunderstandthepolicyadvisorroleplayedbythescientists?Onewayto startistolookatthenotedabsenceofboundaryworkinlightofPielke’ssuggested rolesforscientistsindecisionͲmaking.AtthefoundationofPielke’ssuggestedrolesis theunderstandingthatthegreatertheuncertainty–bothscientificandpolitical–the moreimportantitisforsciencetofocusonpolicyoptionsratherthanscientific
28
results(alone),andrelatedly,thatthetwocriticalfactorstoconsiderforscientists whendecidinghowtoapproachanissueisthedegreeofvalueconsensusandthe degreeofuncertainty.
However,itisnotagivenwhattheissueinquestioniswhenlookingathydrogen scientists.Asthesecondandthirdpapersshow,hydrogenhasbeenconnectedtoa numberofissues–energyuse,climatechange,domesticuseofnaturalgas,local pollutionandopportunitiesfornewbusiness.Shouldweunderstandwhatthe hydrogenscientistsdoasprovidingapolicyoptioninlightoftheseissues?Andwould thatmakethemissueadvocatesduetotheirattemptstoconvinceothersabouta particularchoice,orwoulditbemoreappropriatetoviewthemashonestbrokers becausetheyaretryingtobringanewpolicyoptiontothetable? Itisnot unreasonabletoarguethatthehydrogenscientistsaretryingtoexpandthescopeof choicefordecisionͲmaking(andthethirdpaperinparticularhighlightsthattheir argumentcannotbeinterpretedasasuggestiontofocusalleffortsrelatedtoclimate andenergyissuesonhydrogen).Thus,inthiscase,Pielke’sdifferentiationbetween honestbrokersasactorswhoexpandtheoptionsavailableforpolicy,andissue advocatesasactorswholimitthenumberofoptions, doesnotseemtofit.
Nevertheless,theconceptsbehindthecategorieshighlightsomethingessentialabout what kindof policy advicethehydrogenscientistsprovide:Asuggestion that hydrogenisapolicyoption,anargumentthatsomethingshouldbeanissue.
Howdoesthisrelatetothenotableabsenceofboundaryworkinthematerial?In Jasanoff’sstudyoftheSAB,boundaryworkprovidedthescientistswithawayto avoidbeing“labeledascaptivetoEPA’smission”(Jasanoff,1990:95).Justlikeitcan bequestionedwhattheissueathandisinthecaseofhydrogen,itisquestionable whowouldcapturethehydrogenscientists. Iftheissueistakenassuggesting hydrogenassuch–andhydrogenscientistsareseenasissueadvocatesforhydrogen asanissue–whatkindofboundaryworkwouldbepossible?Thefirstpapersuggests thathydrogenscientistsaredefinedbythattheymakeaconnectiontohydrogen
29
energyasaconcept.Thisimpliesthatdrawingastrictboundarybetweenhydrogen scienceand thesuggesting of hydrogen asa policyissue would remove the
“hydrogen”fromthescience.However,therearenocasesinthematerialwherethe scientificauthorityofthescientistshasbeenquestionedinthesensethatithasbeen questionediftheirresearchwasinaccordancewithgoodscientificpractices.Thus,it isalsopossiblethatthelackofanynoticeableboundaryworkisaneffectofanother sideofthehydrogenissue:Ifthescientistshavebeenviewedassomeonebringinga policyoptiontothetable,itispossiblethathydrogenenergyhasbeentreatedasone amongmanypolicyoptions(andthusthatargumentsagainsthydrogenenergyhave beenframednotasquestionsaboutscientificcertainty,butratheraboutpolitical priorities).Tofurtherexamineifthisisagoodunderstandingofthepolicyadvice providedbyhydrogenscientists,weneedtolookmorecloselyatthisseeming inextricabilitywefindbetweenhydrogenscienceandhydrogenasapolicyoption.In thewordsofAlanIrwin,weneedtolookatthe“morefundamentalandmutual embedding between scienceand politics than the conceptof boundary work necessarilyconveys”(Irwin,2008:589)–inotherwords,atthepossibilityofhydrogen scienceascoͲproduced.
Aswesaw,JasanoffsuggestsfourparticularlysalientpathwaysofcoͲproduction:
“making identities, making institutions, making discourses and making representations”(Jasanoff,2004:38).Whenlookingattheempiricalbasisofmy thesis–asetofdatacollectedtodescribehydrogenscience–itisnoteworthyhow attemptingtounderstandinghydrogensciencealsoledtothesepathways:the identitiesofscientistsinrelationtoworkingonhydrogenbeingintegraltothefirst paper,withtheireffortstomakeinstitutions(conferences)andthelackthereof (effortstocreateadiscipline)alsoplayinganimportantpart.Thesecondpaper examinesNorwegianhydrogenpolicydiscourses,whilethethirdpapercouldbeseen asdealingwithaspecificformofrepresentations.Thefirstpapershowshow hydrogen science for the scientists is connected to a sense of meaning and
30
usefulness.Thesecondpaperstudieshydrogenscientistswhoareconcernedwiththe valueaspectsofhydrogenscience,andwhoarecomfortablewithdealingwith mattersofconcernaswellasmattersoffact(Latour2004).Thethirdpaperobserves scientistswhoarguethecaseofhydrogenasanobjectofresearchfundingwhile connectingittoawidersetofproblems.Whentakentogether,thepapersrevealthat hydrogenscienceisindeedacaseof“naturalandsocialordersasbeingproduced together”(Jasanoff,2004:2).Inotherwords,hydrogensciencecannotbeunderstood aseitherpurelyscientificorjustpolitical.Theamalgamationofdiversescientific effortstoasetofpoliticalissuesiswhatcreateshydrogenscienceassimultaneously aproposedsolutionandaprogramforresearch–withpartoftheproposedsolution beingtofundsaidresearch.
SayingthathydrogenscienceisacoͲproductpartlyanswersourquestionaboutwhat hydrogenscienceis.However,fromthesummaryofthepaperswealsoknowthat whathydrogenscienceisseemstobeshiftingfromonecontexttotheother:While thesecondpapersuggeststhathydrogenscienceiscurrentlymainlyatransportation issue,thefirstandthirdpapersconnecthydrogentoawidersetofissues(similarlyto what thesecondpapershowshappened in2002Ͳ2004).Does thismean that hydrogenis“weaklystructuredincommonuse,andbecomestronglystructuredin individualͲsiteuse”(Star&Griesemer,1989:393),inotherwords,thathydrogenplays theroleofaboundaryobject?Immediatelythisseemslikeaninterestingconceptto applytohydrogenscience,asithighlightsthatthereissomekindofcooperation goingondespitethatthereisnoconsensusonwhathydrogen(science)is.Arguably, hydrogenplaystherole ofboundaryobjectat,e.g.,theNorwegianHydrogen Seminar.However,itisworthnoticingStar’scautioningthat“Ithinktheconceptof boundaryobjectismostusefulattheorganizationallevel”(Star,2010:612).Itmaybe abetterdescriptiontosaythathydrogenhasretaineditsinterpretativeflexibility–it is certainly not taken for granted across sites what connections (or which technologies)“hydrogenenergy”entails.
31
Whatfacilitatesthiscontinuedinterpretativeflexibility,whilesimultaneouslyallowing whatseemslikeaclosureinonesite(thepolicydocumentsasshowninpapertwo)?
OnepossibleanswerisfoundinLatour’sconceptoftranslatinginterests,whichwith itsfocusonlinkingyourowngoalswiththoseofothersdrawourattentiontowhat kindofdifferentgoalsarelinkedthroughhydrogen.Ifwecomparethesegoals,we findatleastthreedifferentkinds:Theoverarchinggoalsofaclimatefriendlysociety orhydrogensocietyarefairlygenerallongͲtermgoals.Thegoalofbuildinga hydrogenroadinNorway,whenspecifiedtobuildingasetoffuellingstations,isa moreconcreteandshortͲtermgoal.Thethirdkindofgoalwefindisincreased fundingforhydrogenresearch–motivatedbytheoverarchinglongͲtermgoals,it couldneverthelessalsobeseenasafairlyconcrete,shortͲtermgoalinitsownrightif weviewitasagoalforsciencepolicy(orforscientists).Whenlookingatthedifferent timeframesimpliedinthesegoals,itistemptingtosuggestthattimeitselfservesasa kindofclosuremechanism(oropeningmechanism)inourcase.Fortheshortterm, hydrogenisinterpretedintermsofwhatpolicycurrentlyaddresses:transportation andsciencefunding.However,thelongͲtermdimensionisanessentialpartofthe reasonsgivenforshorttermaction,atleastinthecaseofsciencefundingandthe scientists’argumentsinfavorofit.Oneinterpretationoftherelationbetweenthese goalsisthatthescientistshavejoinedwiththelongͲtermgoalofthepoliticians (Latour’sstrategy1)whileconvincingthepoliticiansthat theywantwhatthe scientistsalreadywant,i.e.sciencefunding(Latour’sstrategy2).Thisleadstothe conclusionthatthehydrogenscientistsprovidetwokindsofpolicyadvice:Ascience policysuggestionoffundingforhydrogenresearchiscombinedwiththescientists contributingtobroaderenergypolicyproposals.
InherintroductiontoStatesofKnowledge,SheilaJasanoffarguesthat“inbroad areasofbothpresentandpasthumanactivity,wegainexplanatorypowerby thinkingofnaturalandsocialordersasbeingproducedtogether”(Jasanoff2004:2).
Thecaseofhydrogenscienceshowshowthisexplanatorypowermaybefurther
32
expandedwhenwecombineacoͲproductionperspectivewithtranslationtheory.
Translationtheoryoriginatesfromstudiesofscientistsandtraditionallysetstheir goals in the center of attention. CoͲproduction shifts the focus towards the interactionbetweenscienceandpolitics.Whencombined,theyinformeachother.
Thinkingintermsoftranslationtheoryclarifieswhatwemaylookforwhenwegather dataalongthefourpathwaysJasanoffdescribeasparticularlyeffectiveforcoͲ productionist studies (the making of identities, institutions, discourses and representations).ThinkingintermsofcoͲproductionmakesiteasiertoavoidmaking assumptionsofwhoiswinningwhomovertotheirwayofthinkingasscientists interactwithpolicy.WhenscientistsemployLatour’stranslationstrategy1andjoin withthelongͲtermgoalsofthepoliticians,thismaysimultaneouslybeacaseof politicians successfully using Latour’s second translation strategy – that it is politicianswhoareconvincingscientiststhatthescientistswantwhatthepoliticians want.Takentogether,theseperspectivescanthusdeepenourunderstandingofthe interplaytakingplacewhenscienceandpolicyinteracts.
Inthebeginningofthispaper,IbrieflyintroducedtheconceptofprofessorͲpoliticians (Slagstad,1998),whichdescribesanimportantrolescientiststookonbyshifting betweenworkingattheuniversityandtakingonpoliticalofficesortaskswherethey –atleastpartly–drewupontheirscientificexpertisewhenmakingpolicy.Ialso describedatomicphysicistGunnarRandersasanexampleofascientistwhoengaged invisionworkasawayofgainingsupportforalargetechnoͲscientficproject.Were anyofthesemodelspresentinmystudy?
Thequickresponseisinthenegative.TheprofessorͲpoliticianmodeldidnotappear intheanalysis,andtofollowinRanders’footstepsisobviouslyverydemanding.
However,asisevidentfrommydiscussionoftheconceptoftranslationabove,visionͲ makingwasapartofwhat(some)hydrogenscientistsdidinordertomakehydrogen interestingforpolicymakers.Still,fromtheanalysisinmythreepapers,itbecomes clearthatthetranslationconceptplacetoomuchemphasisontheroleandstrategies
33
ofthescientists.Whilethescientistsengagedintranslation,theydidsoinacontext wherethetranslationworkwas–sotospeak–commissioned.Putinanotherway, whilethescientistswereofferingadvice,policymakerswerealsoaskingforit.
Twophenomenaseemparticularlypertinentinthisrespect.First,aswelearnfrom thethirdpaper,policymakersmaysetupparticularchannelsforgettingadvicefrom scientists,channelsthatinvolveformatting.Whilefundingapplicationsmaynothave traditionallybeenthoughtofasanarenaforpolicyadvice,thescientistswere instructed to explain the relevance of their proposed projects by addressing identifiedandpotentiallyimportantpolicyareas.Thuswhatwasrequestedfrom themwasthattheymakeitpossibleforpolicymakerstomakesenseoftheir proposalsinpolicyterms.Second,aswelearnfromthesecondpaper,inother channelslikegovernmentalcommissions,scientificadviceisnegotiatedwithpolicy, administrativeexperiencesandvaluesthroughtheworkofhybridlycomposed committees.
Thus,thisdissertationmeanstoaddtothetheoreticalperspectivesdiscussedabove theneedtofocusmoreontheinteractionofscientistsandpolicymakersandplace greaterweightonwhatpolicymakersdo.ThisfocusextendsabitbeyondthecoͲ constructiontypeofanalysis,whichisconcernedwiththewayscientificknowledge andpolicymaybecoͲproducedasstableentities.Whenpolicymakersaregivenmore concern,thisaddsnewdynamicelementsthatwehavetoconsider(Latour,2007 havealsosuggestedthatSTSstudiesmayneedtoexplorethisfurther).
Finally,whatimageofhydrogenscienceandthehydrogensocietydiscourseis providedbymypapers?Severalscholarshavecommentedthattheincreasedinterest inhydrogenintheearly2000sresembledahype(seee.g.Bakker,2010).However, thisthesissuggeststhatwhiletheremayhavebeenahydrogensocietyhype,itisnot obviousthathydrogenscienceisdependentonit.Whilehydrogenlosesvisibilityin politicsandthepublicsphere,itremainsaconsiderableactivitywithinR&Dandto
34
someextentalsoindustry.Thus,asseenfromtheperspectiveofhydrogenscientists, itismorefittingtocharacterizehydrogenassomethinghopeful.Thatitstillhas challengesthatneedtobesolved,doesnotsubtractfromthis–onthecontrary,this simultaneouslyservesasareasonforfundingandasaproviderofmeaning.
Methodology
Thefollowingpapersgivetheirownaccountsofmethodanddata.Thismethodology sectionwillrepeatsomeofthosetocreateanoverview.Furthermore,Iwilladdress twoissuesthatdidnotfitintheformatofthepapers:ANTasamethodological inspirationforchoicesmadewhenworkingwiththisthesis,andhowmydifferent datacollectingstrategieshaveinformedeachother.
ANTasmethodologicalinspiration:Wheretostart,wheretostopand whattodoinǦbetween
ThemethodologicalstartingpointofthisstudyhasbeenActorͲNetworkTheory.Inhis 2005introductionbooktothisapproach,BrunoLatouraddressesatleastthree importantaspectsofmethod:Wheretostart,wheretostopandwhattolookforinͲ betweenthesetwopoints.Latourprovidesthefollowingseeminglysimpleadviceon beginnings:“Whereshouldwestart?Asalways,itisbesttobegininthemiddleof things,inmediasres.Willthereadingofanewspaperdo?Sure,itoffersastarting pointasgoodasany.Assoonasyouopenit,it’slikearain,aflood,anepidemic,an infestation.Witheverytwolines,atraceisbeingleftbysomewriterthatsomegroup isbeingmadeorunmade.[…]Ifwesimplyfollowthenewspapers’cues,thecentral intuitionofsociologyshouldbethatatanygivenmomentactorsaremadetofitina group–ofteninmorethanone”(Latour,2005:27Ͳ28).
Forthisthesiswork,twopossiblestartingpointsweregivenfromtheproject description: Hydrogen (as an energy carrier) with its technologies and the contributionsofscientiststohydrogenpolicy.Attemptingtotraceactorsleadsto employingabroadsetofmethods,andsobothdocuments,places,peopleand
35
deviceswerepossiblesourcesofdata.Thestartingpointsalsoincludedtwocasesof whatLatourreferredtoasactorsbeingmadetofitinagroup:Asetoftechnologies andanelement5beingmadeinto“hydrogenenergy”,andscientistsbeingmadeinto
“hydrogenscientists”.
Fromtheverybeginning,Iwasawarethathydrogenasanenergycarrierwasa specifickindofhydrogen.WhatIdidnotfullyunderstandbeforeIstartedcollecting datawastheinextricabilityofthehydrogenIwasinterestedinandpolitics.Starting frompoliticaldocuments,thetracesof“my”hydrogenwereclearandobservable, thefewtracesofotherhydrogens(e.g.aspartofHeavyWater)easytodistinguish.
However,whenlookingforhydrogenscientists,itsoonbecameclearthat(asthe previoussectionsofthispaperdescribe),hydrogenscienceisnotadiscipline.Icould certainlyfindscientistswhohadengagedwith“my”hydrogen.Buttheonlypossible wayofdefiningahydrogenscientistinthecontextofmystudyturnedouttobein theconnectionstheyhadmade.Thus,asIusetheterm,ahydrogenscientistisnot onlydoingresearchonthemesrelevanttohydrogenasanenergycarrier,butalso linksherresearchtohydrogen,forexamplebyattendinghydrogenconferences,by applyingforsupportfromhydrogenfundingsources,orbypresentingherwork towardsthepublicunderahydrogenheadingthroughspeakingonhydrogeninthe mediaoronaresearchgroupwebsite.Followingthisdefinition,ascientistcouldbea hydrogenscientistandforexampleabatteryscientistatthesametime.Attempting
5Hydrogenisthelightestandmostabundantchemicalelement,constitutingroughly75%ofthe
Universe'schemicalelementalmass(see
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971113i.html,accessed2011Ͳ10Ͳ12).The sun’sfusionofhydrogenintoheliumistheoriginatingsourceofthevastmajorityofenergyavailable atearth.Togetherwithcarbon(ashydrocarbons)hydrogenisacentralbuildingblockinallfossil fuels;combinewithoxygenandyouwillgetwater,addoxygenandcarbonbothandyouwillhave thenutrientswecallcarbohydrates.Inshort,hydrogenismoreomnipresentthantheairwebreathe (andthereishydrogeninair,too).
36
tobuildonthetraceableconnectionsmadebythescientistsratherthanmakinga cleardefinitionofwhata“hydrogenscientist”is,isanotherwayinwhichthisstudy hasbeeninspiredbyANTperspectives(seeLatour,2005:150Ͳ151).Theinsightthat theactorsknowmore,notless,thanthescientistsstudyingthemaboutthemselvesis certainlynotuniquetoANT,butneverthelessANTscombinedfocusontheactorand theirtraceswereimportantformyfullyrealizingwhatthisimpliedforhowIshould definethescopeofmystudy.
Lastbutnotleast,anANTperspectivehashelpedmebalancemywishforacomplete description,attheveryleastatextthatdoesjusticetoalltheinformationIhavebeen allowedtoaccessduringmyworkwiththisthesis,withacertainlevelofpragmatism.
Istillrecallreadingthequotebelowatthestartofmythesiswork,thinkingitrather unhelpfulformakingmyplans,as“itisfinishedwhenitisdone”seemedarather trickyinstructiontofollow:
“Student:Butthat’sexactlymyproblem,tostop.Ihavetocompletethisdoctorate.I havejusteightmoremonths.Youalwayssay‘moredescriptions’butthisislikeFreud andhiscures:indefiniteanalysis.Whendoyoustop?Myactorsareallovertheplace!
WhereshouldIgo?Whatisacompletedescription?
Professor:Nowthat’sagoodquestionbecauseit’sapracticalone.AsIalwayssay:a goodthesisisathesisthatisdone.Butthereisanotherwaytostopthanjustby
‘addinganexplanationor‘puttingitintoaframe’.
Student:Tellmeitthen.
Professor:Youstopwhenyouhavewrittenyour50,000wordsorwhateveristhe formathere,Ialwaysforget.
Student:Oh!That’sreallygreat.Somythesisisfinishedwhenit’scompleted.So helpful,really,manythanks.Ifeelsorelievednow.
Professor:Gladyoulikeit!Noseriously,don’tyouagreethatanymethoddependson thesizeandtypeoftextsyoupromisedtodeliver?
Student:Butthat’satextuallimit,ithasnothingtodowithmethod.
37
Professor:See?That’swhyIdislikethewaydoctoralstudentsaretrained.Writing textshaseverythingtodowithmethod.Youwriteatextofsomanywords,inso manymonths,basedonsomanyinterviews,somanyhoursofobservation,somany documents.That’sall.Youdonothingmore”(Latour,2005:148).
However,afterhavingmademyattemptatmakingathesis,Ithinktheseinstructions dofulljusticetowhatitisactuallyabout.ThereisnoabsolutelimitIcandrawaround myactors–whileIwouldarguethatthefollowingchapterscontainimportant insightsabouthowscientistsinteractwithpolicy,thereareotherstoriesthatcould betoldthatdidnotfitwithinmytextuallimit.Someactorstoldmebeautifulstories aboutcoincidentallyinteractingwithpolitics–situationswherethey“justdidit”– thathavepassedthroughthecracksinmymakingofthisaccount,partlybecause hydrogendidnotplaymuchofapartinthesestories,butalsobecauseIhadreached thepointwhereIhadwrittenatextthatfulfilledtheformalrequirementsthisthesis wastofulfill,andmytimewasup.And“that’sall”.
Fieldworkandsnowballingascomplementarypointsofdeparture
Thedata describedin thepapersofthisthesisismainly interviewdataand documents.Nevertheless,akindoffieldworkhasbeenanimportantbasisformy work.Ihaveattended12conferencesandseminars,somewithhydrogenincludedas oneofseveraltopicsandsomebeingpurelyhydrogenconferences.Aswellas attending presentations, excursions and social events in connection with the conferences,Ihavealsousedtheconferenceprogramstogaininsightinwhatthemes Norwegianhydrogenscientistsfocuson.Ihavewrittennotesfromtheconferences.I havetalkedtoattendees,aboutbothmyownandtheirresearch.Ihaveshareda roomwithafellowPhDstudentanddiscussedhowitfeelstopresentonconferences.
Ihavelaughedalongwiththerestofthegroupwhenaprofessorjokinglycommented howbadourcompressibilitywasataconferencegrouppicturetakingsession(the hydrogencontextmadeitquitefunny).IhavestoodatthebackwithaState
38
SecretarywatchingherMinisteropenasession,whisperingcommentsandquestions abouthydrogenversusbatterycars.
WhenananthropologistdoesalongͲtermfieldwork,thereisplentyofroomforboth gettingtoknowpeopleandclarifyingtheroleofthescientistasanobserver.Withmy study,itwaslessobvioushowtodothis.Icouldhavedonethekindofstudyofone laboratorythatwereoneofthestartingpointsofscienceandtechnologystudies(see Latour&Woolgar,1979).However,thereisnoobvious“hydrogenlab”whichIcould havestudied–theresearchersbecomehydrogenscientistswhentheycometogether fromasetofdifferentlaboratories.Ithusfounditmoreusefultomystudytobe presentatthesegatheringplaces.Withfairlyshorttimeframesinwhichtogetto knowpeople,IdecidedonanapproachwhereIaskedforaninterview(onafew occasionstheywereasshortas5minutes,sometimesanobservationataconference waswhatmademeaskforalongerinterviewatalaterdate)togetstatements confirmedandusequotesfromtheseinterviewsasbasisforfurtheranalysis.Ibelieve astrengthinthisapproachwasthatitallowedmetobenotoverlyintrusiveatthe conferencesIattended,whilesimultaneouslynotquotinganyonewithouttheir awareness.Onmorethanoneoccasion,askinganintervieweeifIhadunderstood themcorrectlyalsoresultedintheintervieweereflectingontheirstatementinaway thatprovidedvaluableanalyticalinsights.Thusthefieldworkstrengthenedthe interviewsas“adynamic,meaningͲmakingoccasion”(Holstein&Gubrium,1995:9).
The interviews were with one exception conducted at the workplace of the interviewees, giving additional opportunities for observation (two interviewees graciouslygavemeaguidedtouroftheirlabs).
Ibelievethatsnowballingisthetermthatbestfitsmystrategyforchoosingboth informantsandconferences–butthisexpressionshouldthenbeunderstoodas applyingtotheconferencesandinformantstogether.Theintervieweeswereselected basedonobservationsattheconferencesandfromsuggestionsmadebyother interviewees(snowballing).Theconferencestoattendwereselectedbasedon
39
suggestions from interviewees and on conference announcements from the Norwegian HydrogenForum –some conferences were recurringevents. Iam especiallygratefultomyinitialtwointervieweeswhowerewithscientistsalsoin somewayinvolvedwithorganizinghydrogenscienceorgivinghydrogenenergy advicetotheauthorities.
Altogether,32interviewswereconductedinNorway,withscientistsrepresentingfive differentuniversitiesandresearchinstitutions,representativesoffundingagencies, industry,authorities,andNGOs.Onescientistwasinterviewedtwice,andone interviewhadtwointerviewees.Inaddition,threeinterviewswereconductedduring astayasavisitingscholaratUCDavis,Institutefortransportationstudies,withtwo scientistsandoneformerscientistnowworkingforagovernmentagency,andI attendedseveralhydrogenͲrelatedpresentationsandseminarswhileinCalifornia.
Thisprovidedvaluableadditionalinsightinhydrogenscienceinternationally,buthas notbeenpartofthefinalanalysis.AlistofinterviewsisattachedasAppendixA.The 19interviewedNorwegianscientistscamefromtwodifferentuniversities,one universitycollegeandtworesearchinstitutes.
Thedocumentsanalyzedinthisthesisweregatheredinthreedifferentways.Oneset ofdatawerethehydrogenͲrelatedapplicationssubmittedtotheCleanEnergyforthe Futureprogram(Renergi),seechapter3fordetails.Theboundaryofthissetofdata wasdecidedbywhattheResearchCouncilofNorway(RCN)wasabletoallowaccess to.ThefirstanalysisofthesedocumentswasdoneonthepremisesoftheRCN.Iwas givenatemporaryworkplacethere,andtheopportunitythisgaveforquestionsand conversationswithpeopleworkingwiththeRenergiprogramwasveryhelpfultomy work.Thesecondsourceofwrittenmaterialwasanumberofwebsitesthatwere usedasastartingpointsupplementingconferencesandinterviewsinmyattemptat gaining an overview of Norwegian hydrogen research. This includes hydrogenplattformen.no,whichisrunbytheResearchCouncilofNorwaylisting ongoing hydrogen projects, the websites of involved research groups.
40
www.cristin.no,anationalNorwegiandatabaseforsciencepublications,wasusedto gaugethefocusonhydrogenenergyasathemeandpublicationsinspecifichydrogen journalsamongsttheinterviewedscientists.Thelastsetofwrittendatawaspolicy documents,basedonasearchthatisdetailedinchapter4.Somedocumentswere added tothefirst setof findingsbasedon referencesto them inthe other documents.Thefieldworkmentionedabovewasalsohelpfulwhentryingtodecideif thereweredocumentsthatshouldbepaidextraattention,asweretheinterviews.
Onseveraloccasionsintervieweesprovidedwrittenmaterial.Someofthiswasfairly informal(likecopiesofeͲmailsandpowerͲpointpresentations),butsomeofithas beenmoreformalandmoredirectlyrelatedtothepolicydocuments(likealobbyͲ lettertoamemberofparliament).ThelatterdocumentsIhaveusedtosupplement theanalyzedpolicydocumentswhenappropriate.
Addressingissuesregardingtheinteractionofscientistswithpolicy,inacasesuchas minewithoutoneobviouscommitteethatcouldbefollowedmoreclosely,calledfor abroadapproach.Together,the35interviews,12conferencesandseminars,55 research funding applications and numerous policy documents comprise an extensive,andIbelievesatisfactory,basisfortheanalysisdoneinthisthesis.
Anactiveinterviewer
IntheirbookTheNewLanguageofQualitativeMethod,GubriumandHolstein examinedifferentwaysinwhichqualitativesocialscientiststalkaboutmethod.
Summarizing some common threads which simultaneously work as excellent guidelinesforqualitativeinquiry,theywritethat“shiftingbetweenwhatandhow questionskeepstheanalysisofinterpretivepracticeselfͲconsciouslyattentivetoboth theworldresearchedandtheresearcher.[…]Becausethedualapproachemphasizes theemergentandcontingentnatureofsocialreality,itunderscoresthetraditional
“antitotalizing”spiritofqualitativeinquiry,retainingaroleforbothindividualagency andcircumstantialevidence.This,inturn,encouragesatheoreticalminimalismthat guardsagainstbothaprioriassumptionsanddeterministicmodeling”(Gubrium&
