1. So what? Why we need Interpretive Methods (IM) for water governance... Experiences from Ashford Integrated Alternatives RACHEL MACRORIE r.macrorie@bradford.ac.uk rachelmacrorie@googlemail.com

2. Research interests  Governance of change towards more sustainable systems  Water & energy consumption (& production) RA Public engagement in water & energy systems - Ashford Integrated Alternatives PhD Energy use, carbon reduction & behaviour change

3. IM & water governance  Technological approaches dominate the sector  Positivist research approaches perpetuate systems of organisation  ‘We will only succeed in making changes if we adopt a new comprehensive approach’ (DEFRA, 2005:2)  Take account of ‘the social and institutional context of consumer action’ (Jackson, 2005: v)

4. IM benefits  Provides valuable concrete, context dependent knowledge ( Flyvbjerg, 2006). To understand actions, practices and institutions, we need to grasp the relevant meanings, beliefs and preferences of the people involved (Bevir and Rhodes, 2004)  Unpacks power structures  Space for reflection, learning & renegotiation  Challenges existing understandings  Sets precedent for new approaches

5. AIA: Savings at Home retrofit

6. Resource ownership & responsibility Citizens with rights to communal resources Individual consumers who pay for commodities or services Passive reliance upon technology Actively engaged in resource management Cultural theory framework

7. Information & encouragement: ‘This is what we should be doing more of, actually giving people information, encouraging them, reducing our resource use’ Goal-orientated behaviour: ‘I’m not trying to get down to a particular unit of electricity usage per week’ Collective challenge: ‘The costs are part of it but environmentally, the fact that it’s going to run out...we’ve really got to do our bit to save what we can’ Research outcomes

8. IM designed intervention  Demonstrable Impacts:  + Neighbourhood & integrated approach  - Broader sustainability approach  - Trust of lead organisation & credibility of intervention  Desired Impacts:  ‘Action Research’  Community based approaches  Deliberative decision making

9. Barrier to IM research 1. Not a tried and tested approach in socio-technical-systems research 2. Exploratory, not predictive 3. Resource (time, money) intensive 4. Premised on ideas about power relations & altering systems of provision 5. Outcomes might be challenging e.g. advocating public engagement 6. Requires institutional openness to expose & reflect upon learning Overcoming barriers to IM Means to overcome barrier Demonstrate application and promote successful cases Explain added-value of IM research Added value & interdisciplinary research Involve resource governance organisations throughout Present results constructively & link to current political agendas Manage expectations