http://www.diva-portal.

org

This is the published version of a paper published in Environmental Sociology.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Boström, M., Lidskog, R., Uggla, Y. (2017)

A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmental sociology.
Environmental Sociology, 3(1): 6-16
https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2016.1237336

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-54286
 Environmental Sociology

ISSN: (Print) 2325-1042 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rens20

A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmental

sociology

Magnus Boström, Rolf Lidskog & Ylva Uggla

To cite this article: Magnus Boström, Rolf Lidskog & Ylva Uggla (2017) A reflexive
look at reflexivity in environmental sociology, Environmental Sociology, 3:1, 6-16, DOI:
10.1080/23251042.2016.1237336

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2016.1237336

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 11 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 344

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rens20

Download by: [213.65.133.77] Date: 05 January 2017, At: 07:55

Environmental Sociology, 2017
Vol. 3, No. 1, 6–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2016.1237336

A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmental sociology

Magnus Boström *, Rolf Lidskog and Ylva Uggla
School of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
(Received 15 March 2016; accepted 14 September 2016)

Reflexivity is a central concept in environmental sociology, as in environmental social science in general. The concept is
often connected to topics such as modernity, governance, expertise, and consumption. Reflexivity is presented as a means
for taking constructive steps towards sustainability as it recognizes complexity, uncertainty, dilemmas, and ambivalence.
Critical discussion of the conceptual meaning and usage of reflexivity is therefore needed. Is it a useful theoretical concept
for understanding various sustainability issues? Is ‘more reflexivity’ relevant and useful advice that environmental
sociologists can give in communicating with other disciplines, policymakers, and practitioners? This article explores the
conceptual meaning of reflexivity and assesses its relevance for environmental sociology. In particular, it reviews its usages
in three research fields; expertise, governance, and citizen-consumers. The paper furthermore discusses the spatial and
temporal boundaries of reflexivity. It concludes by discussing how the concept can be a useful analytical concept in
environmental sociology, at the same time as it warns against an exaggerated and unreflexive use of the concept.
Keywords: reflexivity; environmental governance; expertise; citizen; consumer

Introduction After this introduction, the second section will briefly

Reflexivity has become a key concept in environmental review how reflexivity has been introduced and defined in
sociology, in which it is associated with, for example, environmental sociology. The third section reviews how
Giddens’ and Beck’s work on reflexive modernization the concept has been applied in three research areas in
(see e.g. Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1995). The concept of environmental sociology: science and expertise, environ-
reflexivity is connected to topics such as governance, mental governance, and citizen-consumers. The fourth
expertise, and lifestyle. It is furthermore associated with section analyses how reflexivity can lead to or coexist
several other terms, such as uncertainty, transparency, and with unreflexivity as well as the extent to which reflexivity
participation. This paper aims to give a theoretical account can be institutionalized. The fifth and concluding section
of the concept of reflexivity and its usage in environmental discusses the potential role of the concept in environmen-
sociology. More precisely, the paper aims to identify vari- tal sociology both for studying a range of sustainability
eties of usage of the concept and to assess the theoretical issues and for speaking to practice.
relevance of the concept to a sociology of the environ-
ment. To this end, the paper considers to what extent
‘reflexivity’ is a relevant theoretical concept for under- Reflexivity: self-confrontation and reflection
standing various sustainability issues. Does reflexivity Ulrich Beck’s (1992, 1994, 2009) work on the world risk
offer a useful model and concept for critically examining society and reflexive modernization is the key source for
current practices? Could reflexivity be yet another over- the concept of reflexivity in environmental sociology.
simplified message to researchers, practitioners, and pol- Beck connects late-modern risks to how institutions (e.g.
icymakers? Is ‘more reflexivity’ really a relevant and technology, science, politics, the state, and the economy)
useful strategy that environmental sociologists can apply operated in ‘simple’ modernity. In simple modernity,
in communicating with various academic and other problem-solving relies on a cognitive and instrumental
audiences? approach in which uncertainty, complexity, and ambiva-
Although there are good reasons for using ‘reflexivity’ lence are handled through the use of rationality and tech-
as a theoretical and normative concept in environmental nology. This approach relies on the view that it is possible
sociology, a self-reflexive examination of this concept and to know the ‘Truth’ on the basis of universal and objective
its application is warranted to prevent the call for ‘more knowledge, and that it is possible to control reality based
reflexivity’ from becoming yet another unreflexive man- on such knowledge. Problem-solving is specific and
agement imperative. This study is based on a review of straightforward, the goal being to maximize the control
previous literature applying the concept of reflexivity. of social and economic development. The theory of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.
 Environmental Sociology 7

reflexive modernization holds that this approach to important to pay close attention to forces trying to prevent
problem-solving inevitably leads to unintended and nega- the institutions of the simple modernity, it is an open ques-
tive consequences. As these side effects multiply and are tion, on an analytical level, if these forces themselves
increasingly seen as unresolved by traditional instrumental should be labelled anti-reflexive. Indeed, the fight against
approaches, a reflexive turn emerges – in Beck’s terminol- reflexive modernization might itself require significant
ogy, ‘reflexive modernization’ or the ‘world risk society’. reflexivity, including capacity to anticipate others’ action
According to Beck (2009, 109ff, 1994, 5ff), such and capability to intimidate, misrepresent, and manipulate
reflexivity does not necessarily imply more reflection. environmental scientists and advocates. Reflexivity might
His analysis reveals that reflexivity can have two different, be needed to keep powerful decision makers misinformed
though related, meanings. The first meaning of reflexivity and unreflective. Not only Beck and Giddens but also
is what Beck calls self-confrontation. Industrial society Bauman argue that our current crises could very well lead
generates unintended side effects and risks that shake the to various narrow perspectives and fundamentalist ideolo-
foundations of industrial society and its core institutions gies including nationalism, xenophobia, and terrorism
(e.g. the nation-state) in ways that cannot be ignored and (Bauman 2006; Beck 2009; Giddens 1994a). When society
that force society to take action. A nuclear accident, for can no longer provide certitude, as in the case of industrial
example, must be handled. Furthermore, these ‘mega society, one consequence could be increased reflexivity and
risks’ are socially explosive, having various social conse- another fundamentalist thinking. Stevenson and Dryzek
quences: new discourses, movements, politics, and mar- (2012, 192) suggest that we can distinguish between reflex-
kets. As no one can foresee and estimate how these ive modernization and reflexive traditionalization. The for-
processes will evolve, the certitude of industrial society mer notion implies increased awareness of and openness to
results in the uncertainties of the risk society that confront discourses other than those into which one has been socia-
society and must be acted upon. lized. The latter implies the rejection of alternatives and a
In contrast to this meaning of ‘reflexivity’, Beck uses retreat into the familiar, while perceiving these alternative
the word ‘reflection’ to refer to various forms and con- discourses as threatening the familiar. Linking the reflective
structions of knowledge. The conceptual meaning is appo- capacity to discourses can thus both enable and constrain
sitely grasped by Giddens (1990, 38), who says that in communication and deliberation. From this theoretical over-
reflexive modernization, ‘social practices are constantly view, we now turn to the use and debates of the reflexivity
examined and reformed in the light of incoming informa- concept in three research fields.
tion about those very practices, thus constitutively altering
their character’, stressing that reflection is constantly
engaged in by both individuals (i.e. laypeople as well as Reflexivity in three research fields: expertise,
experts) and organizations. Like Beck, Giddens links this governance, and citizen-consumers
propensity for reflexivity to historical processes of detra- Reflexivity is a concept with growing usage, and is uti-
ditionalization, individualization, and the undermining of lized in a number of research areas. In this section, we
traditional authorities and structures (e.g. the state, church, review how the concept has been used and debated in
science, family, and gender roles). Whereas Giddens pri- three research fields of certain relevance to environmental
marily discusses reflection and how it is institutionalized sociology: science and expertise, environmental govern-
in late-modern society, Beck focuses on reflexivity. Beck ance, and citizen-consumers.
(2009, 119ff) summarizes the differences between reflec-
tion and reflexivity by stating that whereas reflection con-
cerns knowing and knowledge and the belief that more Reflexive expertise
knowledge will increase the problem-solving capacity of In reflexive modernity, scientific expertise, according to
institutions and society, reflexivity/self-confrontation con- both Beck (1992) and Giddens (1990, 1994a, 1994b), has
cerns unknowing (i.e. unintended and unknown side a new role. Its capacity to deliver objective truth, deter-
effects). Due to their interrelatedness, in this article, we mine risk, and suggest ways to control risk is questioned.
use the term reflexivity for both self-confrontation and There is a ‘reflexive scientization’ in which science itself
reflection. When we specifically refer to only one of is deconstructed by means of science. Science is thereby
these aspects, we highlight this by using the terms self- both internally and externally contested: experts frequently
confrontation and reflection. disagree and this is known to the wider society.
In relation to the theories of reflexive modernization, Furthermore, the very specialization of expertise means
scholars have addressed the importance of bringing to light that there can be no meta-experts, that is, experts on all
the forces of counter-reflexivity (Borne 2009) or anti- experts. Claims for the universal legitimacy and applic-
reflexivity. McCright and Dunlap (2010) argue that the ability of science are also more disputed than before.
American conservative movement is an anti-reflexive Taken together, this demonopolization of science results
force attempting to protect the industrial capitalist order of in a world consisting of multiple and competing epistemic
simple modernization by forcefully challenging the advo- authorities. Almost every public issue involves a hetero-
cates of reflexive modernization, that is, the environmental geneous supply of scientific statements. This heterogeneity
movement and environmental impact science. Although it is in turn creates an open space for the public contestation of
8 M. Boström et al.

science, in which citizens scrutinize science and develop food products require not only scientific knowledge such
counter-expertise. as technical risk analysis but also insight into how society
This situation does not, however, imply that the expert works, how activities are regulated, and how power is
role is less important. Beck believes that a reflexive exerted. Such technical framing is often taken for granted,
science, broadly disseminated in society and used by implying the preemption of political discussion and limit-
social movements and civic networks, can serve to demo- ing the capacity to discover, understand, and internalize
cratize society. He states that ‘only a strong, competent challenges that arise outside a particular frame. To be
public sphere, “armed” with scientific arguments is cap- reflexive, experts must be aware not only of their own
able of separating the scientific wheat from the chaff’ assumptions but also of the framing of the issue at stake.
(Beck 2009, 44). Likewise, Giddens (1994a) stresses that However, research has found that expertise can be
the advance and spread of scientific knowledge – includ- reflexive in another way. Scientists and experts often act
ing the consequences of its application – imply that strategically in order to maintain and strengthen their cred-
tradition-guided action is replaced by more scientifically ibility and epistemic authority. Drawing on Goffman’s dra-
mediated understandings of the world. Today, according to maturgical view of society, Hilgartner (2000) uses the ‘stage
Giddens, organizations exhibit an institutional reflexivity management’ concept to capture science’s deliberative and
in which their performance is systematically monitored reflexive work to become an authoritative reference for
and controlled by themselves and/or other organizations. determining what should be done. Front-stage performance
The reflexive appropriation of knowledge is a way to encompasses activities that are believed to strengthen
guide action, while this appropriation may simultaneously experts’ authority and are therefore deliberately shown to
undermine the stability of social structures. Giddens and the public. For example, scientific results are presented as
Pierson (1998) exemplify this with the financial market, certain and objective, produced at a distance from and
which through its use of massive information creates new independently of political and normative considerations
and unforeseen risks. Manufactured uncertainty is there- (cf. Latour 1998). Backstage, remote from public visibility,
fore more related to the advance of knowledge than to any the process of knowledge production and synthesis may be
lack of it (in contrast to Beck, who sees unknowing and its characterized by uncertainty, controversies, and normative
implications as central; see Beck 2009, 126–128). biases. By considering stakeholders’ views, experts can
Some scholars question this assumption of increasing deliberately choose what to make public (front stage) and
reflexivity in society (Alexander 1996; Dean 1999; Lash what to conceal (backstage) in order to deliver trusted
2000). In the field of science and technology studies knowledge and to facilitate action. Expertise can be reflex-
(STS), the (un)reflexivity of expertise is a recurrent ive in the sense of anticipating how other actors may under-
theme. Several empirical studies have found that scientific stand and evaluate its messages, and therefore strategically
expertise is rarely reflexive concerning its own activity stage its activities to maximize authority and influence.
and underlying assumptions (Irwin 1995; Wynne 1992). Although many STS researchers criticize science for
Scientific experts’ belief in their own capacity to find not being reflexive, contesting the claim that society has
correct and true answers has made them unresponsive to moved from simple to reflexive modernization, they still
the public’s actually valid and reflected worries and believe in knowledge, learning, and reflexivity. All knowl-
claims, or they listen to but dismiss these concerns as edge – including scientific knowledge – derives from
manifesting non-knowledge (Wynne 2005). Experts often particular social and cultural contexts. Knowledge pro-
fail to consider that laypeople may be reflexive beings cesses should be open to many voices, they argue, includ-
who do not naïvely believe their own knowledge to be ing explicit negotiations and critical discussions among
true and others’ false, but instead often evaluate their own various discourses. This proposal presupposes an institu-
and others’ knowledge claims. The relevance and validity tionalized reflexivity, that is, that organizations should
of the public evaluation of issues is therefore often denied develop a self-critical ability to review their own assump-
by experts (Irwin and Wynne 2003; Wickson and Wynne tions and commitments and expose them to critical and
2012; Wynne 1992), and in cases when public engagement public contestation. Nonetheless, there is always a risk that
has been welcomed, this may occur without any deeper scientists (as well as governance actors; see Section 3.2)
reflexivity in terms of the public being invited to critically may embrace reflexivity and participation in a shallow
examine scientific assumptions and normative frameworks sense in which they welcome a choir of supporting voices
(Chilvers 2012). without opening themselves to critical evaluation of their
This unreflexivity is reinforced by the circumstance own assumptions and definitions of issues (Chilvers 2012;
that many technical issues are framed in a technocratic Irwin 2006).
way (Jasanoff 1990; 2005; 2011; Wynne 2005, 2010), at To sum up, while disagreeing on several matters, scho-
the expense of broader political, social, or cultural con- lars such as Beck, Giddens, Irwin, and Wynne demonstrate
siderations. Such narrow framing places scientific exper- that ‘reflexivity’ has a role to play when approaching
tise at the centre, involves questionable models of nature expertise. What is problematic, however, is when it is
(with excessive reduction of complexities), and naïve assumed that science has indeed become more reflexive in
models of how society works. Issues of, for example, Beck’s sense. A crucial empirical question for environmen-
genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and synthetic tal sociology is whether scientific institutions and scientists
 Environmental Sociology 9

are endorsing and practicing the explicit questioning of their Martens 2007). Problems cannot be solved in a once-for-
own assumptions, opening themselves to external view- all manner because new problems, trade-offs, and ambiv-
points. STS demonstrate that reflexive expertise often alences are likely to appear after decisions are made. This
appears as a more desired option than empirical reality. If stream of literature, thus, emphasizes that governance
the social and normative contexts and assumptions of actors must develop the potential to respond continuously
science are not critically discussed and debated, the current to unexpected outcomes.
rhetoric on transparency, reflexivity, and inclusion may Accordingly, reflexive governance is geared towards con-
reproduce unreflexive scientific practices and expert advice. tinuous learning ‘in the course of modulating ongoing devel-
Reflexive expertise would require considerable self- opments, rather than towards complete knowledge and
criticism and openness to multiple actors to be able to maximisation of control’ (Voss and Kemp 2006, 7).
raise novel questions and to critically evaluate and contest Governance actors must be forward looking and adaptive,
scientific propositions and expert recommendations. allow for trial-and-error learning, and permit experimenting
with new innovations (Grin 2006; Kemp and Loorbach
2006); they must also be backward looking, make use of
Reflexive governance experience, and critically evaluate earlier mistakes
The concept of reflexivity is sometimes referred to in (Siebenhüner 2011). In being subjected to scrutiny, govern-
studies of environmental governance and risk govern- ance actors must be confronted with witnesses of how exist-
ance (e.g. Van Asselt and van Bree 2011; Van Asselt ing governance contributes to reproducing problems. The
and Renn 2011; Aven and Renn 2009). In these studies, reflexive governance perspective accordingly pays close
reflexivity is associated with other concepts and norms, attention to the importance of public debate and the monitor-
such as openness, transparency, and participation. A ing role of the media, civil society organizations, and other
general idea is that experts, decision makers, and other actors. Cross-sector and multi-actor approaches are therefore
participants should be open to questioning assumptions called for (Boström, Grönholm, and Hassler, 2016; Hassler,
in a given situation, should not conceal issues of uncer- Boström, and Grönholm 2013; Voss, Bauknecht et al 2006).
tainty and the pluralism of values, and should be recep- With regard to this research scholars have also raised
tive of the input and participation of other stakeholders. issues for debate. In a review of the scholarship on reflex-
Reflexivity is also treated as the core analytical concept ive governance, Walker and Shove (2007) welcome its
in some of such studies (e.g. Boström, Grönholm, and serious consideration of ambivalence, while they argue it
Hassler, 2016; Brousseau, Dedeurwaerdere, and still provides an insufficient analysis on how politics and
Siebenhüner 2012; Hassler, Boström, and Grönholm power produce ambivalence. Another problem debated by
2013; Schutter and Lenoble 2010; Voss, Bauknecht et reflexive governance scholars themselves is the ‘efficacy
al. 2006; Voss and Bornemann 2011). Reflexive govern- paradox’ (Voss, Kemp et al. 2006), that is, the tension
ance hence refers to governance that is concerned with between ‘opening up’ for the inclusion of more actors
itself by means of the self-critical scrutiny of current and ‘closing down’ for decision-making. The more actors
governance, including its achievements and unintended that become involved, the trickier the decision-making
negative effects. Jan-Peter Voss, Bauknecht et al. (2006) process is likely to be. Yet another problem is path depen-
have made a substantial contribution here, by building dency. Due to various kinds of institutional and organiza-
on the work of Ulrich Beck. They argue: tional inertia, reflexive learning and continuous reform
will be challenging. Unless institutions are not self-
Reflexive governance puts itself up to probing. It confronted by the side effects of their own operations
acknowledges that governing activities are entangled in and thus forced to change, various external and internal
wider societal feedback loops and are partly shaped by factors tend to reproduce existing institutional structures
the (side) effects of its own working. It incorporates such (e.g. existing rules, discourses, vested interests, and habits;
feedback by opening problem-handling processes for Bos and Grin 2008; Grin 2006). Theorists of reflexive
diverse knowledge, values and resources of influence in
order to learn about appropriate problem definitions, tar- governance engage with this issue of (intended/unin-
gets and strategies of governance for sustainable develop- tended) change versus inertia, and underscore the impor-
ment. (xv–xvi) tance of taking path dependency seriously and suggest
step-by-step transformation (Grin 2006; Kemp and
Reflexive governance hence includes the double meanings Loorbach 2006) rather than seeking unrealistic utopian
of reflexivity: the self-confrontation that Beck speaks policies.
about and reflection that particularly Giddens emphasizes. What are the lessons from empirical studies of envir-
A key question is how existing discourses and social onmental governance and management that apply the con-
arrangements reproduce the generation of problems. cept of reflexivity? We have found studies demonstrating
Another question is whether certain governance structures progress towards reflexive governance as well as studies
and processes could facilitate reflexive learning. demonstrating the opposite: the absence of reflexivity.
Reflexive governance scholars recognize that global Hassler, Boström, and Grönholm (2013) found many
and local sustainability problems are complex, uncertain, forces that prevent reflexivity in intergovernmental orga-
and ambivalent and need to be treated as such (Kemp and nizations; they also found positive developments,
10 M. Boström et al.

particularly in the International Council for the Reflexive citizen-consumers?

Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Through conscious efforts Since the late 1980s, policy, public debate, media, civil
over several years, ICES has achieved significant organi- society, and the social sciences have addressed the conduct
zational and cognitive restructuring to facilitate more of private actors (e.g. organizations, households, and indi-
inclusive and holistic approaches to producing policy- viduals) regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
relevant advice on fishery issues (see also Wilson 2009). other environmental issues. Contrary to the expert under-
However, it is arguably easier to achieve change within standing of the public as ignorant and unreflexive, as
organizations than throughout sectors. In a study of var- described in Section 3.1, this emphasis on people’s every-
ious marine risks connected to environmental governance day conduct relies largely on the notion of reflexive
of the Baltic Sea, Boström, Grönholm, and Hassler (2016) citizens-consumers. Beck (2009, 95) uses the concept of
noticed the rarity of cross-sectoral learning, for example, sub-politics to describe how reflexive modernization and
between the agriculture and fishery sectors. Hence, an individualization entail the ‘de-coupling of politics from
important prerequisite for reflexivity was lacking. government’, implying the self-organization of a variety of
Stevenson and Dryzek (2012) note the potentially reflex- non-state actors. Drawing on Sartre, Beck (1997) con-
ive capacity of the plurality of transnational climate change cludes that people are condemned to individualization,
discourses. However, this potential can only be realized if implying that ‘the standard biography becomes a chosen
these discourses communicate with each other. They studied biography’ (p. 96, italics in original; see also Beck and
four non-state summits held just before the 2009 Copenhagen Beck-Gernsheim 2002). Similarly, Giddens (1991) con-
Climate Summit. These non-state summits appeared to be cludes that the emancipatory politics of modernity was a
discrete events dominated by particular discourses. A politics of life chances, whereas the life politics of late
business-dominated ‘Mainstream Sustainability’ summit and modernity is a politics of choice.
a social movement-dominated ‘Green Radicalism’ summit did The notions of chosen biography and reflexive identity
not communicate with each other. The groups thus failed to comprise a broad range of issues, including family life,
learn from each other, amplifying established views and ideol- gender, and sexuality. In environmental studies, the concept
ogies and consequently failing to foster reflexivity. Gale and of reflexivity has been focused on green identities and life-
Cadman (2014) present another example of how networks styles, everyday practices, and activism. For example,
with divergent discourses fail to speak to each other. They Boström and Klintman (2008) argue that there is a broad
highlight the lack of reflexive policymaking in their study of potential for reflective trust in eco-labels on the part of
the development of an economistic international Sustainable citizens, instead of the blind trust that the labelling systems
Forestry Management (SFM) norm (i.e. the Montreal tend to spur. Their argument is based on findings that it is
Process). The norm developed very rapidly within a closed well-educated and politically interested citizens who express
and clientelistic policy network in Canada that ignored a interest in green and political consumerism (see also Stolle
concurrent eco-social SFM norm-development process (for and Micheletti 2013). In studying social responses to climate
other studies with similar themes, see Wales and Mythen change, Davidson (2012) focuses on ‘meta-reflexives’ who
2002; Marsden 2012; Friedland, Ransom, and Wolf 2010). appear engaged and resourceful. These individuals are cap-
Several studies illustrate how reflexive elements initially con- able of grasping the complexity of climate change, spend ‘a
tribute to the inspiration and design of policy or innovation great deal of energy on inner dialogue’ (p. 620), are value
processes, but often vanish during the processes themselves. oriented, and tend towards activism. Other studies examine
The economic and normative power of an existing socio- the process of lifestyle change as one of moral identity
technological regime and institutional context can be a strong formation (Lorenzen 2012; Sandlin 2009; Shepherd 2002).
force preventing structural change. Examples include studies Although several studies draw in various ways on the
of efforts to develop a sustainable energy supply system in the concept of individual reflexivity, the thesis of the reflexive
Netherlands (Kemp and Martens 2007) and of an innovation individual has also been debated and met with criticism. In
project to develop a sustainable husbandry system for pigs in a review of literature critiquing the individualization the-
the Netherlands (Bos and Grin 2008). In sum, though the sis, which is contained in the theory of reflexive moder-
above studies are varied, they demonstrate that reflexivity nization, Dawson (2012) distinguishes between critiques
concepts have been applied in studies of governance, policy- from the modernist, interactionist, and discourse perspec-
making, innovation, and management at least as much to tives. This distinction captures well the debate, which is
identify missed elements or opportunities as to explain what summarized in the following paragraphs.
actually happens in governance. The review thus shows that The main critique articulated by the modernist research
the concept has both normative and analytical usages. Bos and strand concerns the weak or absent empirical basis for the
Grin (2008) indeed argue that it is a feature of studies of individualization thesis, resulting in an ahistorical account
reflexive modernization from the Beck tradition highlighting of individualization. The criticism is that ‘individualiza-
the tension between simple and reflexive modernization. tion, to the extent it exists, is not in any way “new”’
Existing governance structures and processes reveal tensions (Dawson 2012, 308–309), and that it broadly reflects the
between reflexive and unreflexive forces, and studies in the liberal, middle-class values of its proponents, who back up
field alternate between analysing what actually happens and their thesis by randomly chosen illustrative examples.
what ought to happen.
 Environmental Sociology 11

The interactionist critique mainly concerns the notion of compliance with a hegemonic discourse (Soneryd and
reflexivity as an inner process. Scholars in this strand call for Uggla 2015), and it could well lead to resistance to the
the reintroduction of the social when discussing individuali- whole idea of green consumption.
zation, emphasizing that reflexive awareness is in fact a To sum up, the fact that the notions of individualiza-
culturally embedded process (Dawson 2012, 310). The tion and the reflexive individual have become predominant
notion of an autonomous, critical, and well-informed in late modernity and the circumstance that people are
individual1 who makes ‘free choices’ based on the best increasingly individualized do not necessarily imply that
available information is based on a simplified view of the this constitutes a lived reality for people. Rather, scholar-
individual and a false distinction between the individual as ship of (un)reflexive citizens tend to highlight the socially
either reflexive or traditional (Klintman 2012; Shove 2010). embedded citizen or embedded individualization (Dawson
Studies have illustrated how the individualization of envir- 2012). In this account, sociological concepts of stratifica-
onmental responsibility entails ambivalence, uncertainty, tion, including class and gender, are all but obsolete, and
contradiction, hypocrisy, and dissent when people try to further research ought to keep focus on how various dis-
make sense of the ascribed responsibility relative to other courses, social practices, social movements, governance
norms and values, such as cleanliness, freedom, mobility, tools, and information campaigns empower or constrain
and care for children (e.g. Blühdorn 2013; Borne 2009; citizens to become more or less reflexive.
Cherrier 2009; Connolly and Prothero 2008). Other studies
elucidate the importance of group solidarity and collective
action (e.g. Cherrier 2009; Pentina and Amos 2011; Boundaries of reflexivity
Portwood-Stacer 2012), highlighting ‘the intertwinement of
In this section, we draw on ideas from the referred litera-
collective identity and the individual’s struggle to perform in
tures above and add relevant concepts in order to theorize
accordance with certain values and group norms’ (Soneryd
how reflexivity and its inverses are intertwined. This ana-
and Uggla 2015). Likewise, studies drawing on practice
lysis will further an understanding of the spatial and tem-
theory emphasize that behavioural practices must be under-
poral boundaries of reflexivity. We find it illuminating to,
stood as socially embedded and that the elements of social
first, use the spatial metaphor of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ to
practice (e.g. clothing, housing, food, and travel), rather than
discuss certain possibilities and limitations. That is, heigh-
the individual as a relatively isolated entity, should be at the
tened reflexivity may be achieved ‘inside’ the boundaries
core of the analysis (Halkier 2009; Hargreaves 2011;
of a setting, frame, expertise (Section 3.1), discourse, or
Spaargaren 2003; Warde 2005). Yet other studies of citizen-
social arena, or governance sector (Section 3.2) but to the
consumers reveal that the distinction between reflexivity and
expense of lost reflexivity ‘outside’ that boundary. Second,
unreflexivity is not clear-cut. For example, as Halkier (2001)
we find it warranted to address a temporal notion (or
puts it, ‘social life is neither entirely coincidental nor entirely
paradox) in that efforts to achieve reflexivity on a contin-
determined’ but evinces a mixture of routine and reflexivity
uous basis, may imply the institutionalization and routini-
(see also Klintman 2012; Shove 2010).
zation of it, which in turn may lead to its dissolution.
Moreover, the modernist and interactionist research
strands share the critique concerning the concept of socio-
logical ‘zombie categories’ introduced by Beck, conclud-
ing that the empirical foundation for the assumption that Reflexivity within, unreflexivity outside
concepts such as class and gender have become obsolete is Framing theory provides useful analytical tools for studying
fairly weak (Dawson 2012). how reflexivity ‘within’ one setting can be heightened at the
The third strand of critique concerns individualization same time as unreflexivity ‘outside’ this setting remains.
as discourse. From this perspective, the thesis of the Indeed, various scholars have addressed how ‘reflection’ can
reflexive individual is seen as a cornerstone of neo- be facilitated by frames or discourses (Stevenson and Dryzek
liberalism (Dawson 2012). Drawing on Foucault’s govern- 2012; Fischer 2003). Boström and Klintman (2008) distin-
mentality concept, this research focuses critically on the guish between reflection within a frame (i.e. intraframe reflec-
techniques of the self (e.g. information and education tion) and reflection across frames (i.e. interframe reflection).
campaigns) employed in governing people’s conduct, con- Intraframe reflection concerns how actors use cognitive tools
tributing to a narrow view of agency. For example, the to reflect on practices. Frames such as ‘precaution’, ‘biodiver-
individual is addressed primarily as a consumer (Akenji sity’, ‘cleanliness’, ‘critical loads’, and ‘climate friendliness’
2014; Kent 2009; Maniates 2001) or a carbon calculator may enable actors to perceive, reflect on, and understand
and energy saver (Paterson and Stripple 2010; Uggla and things in novel ways and, through such reflection, change
Uggla 2016), and this type of individualized responsibility practices. It is equally important to ask how attention to
suggests that we can engage and feel content with minor some aspects may result in less attention paid to other aspects.
changes in everyday routines. Rather than gathering as An important insight from framing theory is that frames set
citizens and finding political solutions to institutional chal- boundaries: a frame helps us see what is within the frame but
lenges, we are supposed to believe that green consumption excludes things that fall outside it. Focusing on certain aspects
alone can bring sustainability (Kent 2009; Maniates 2001, of an activity simultaneously means less attention (i.e. less
37). However, reflexivity does not necessarily imply reflexivity) paid to other aspects that fall outside the frame.
12 M. Boström et al.

For example, eco-labelling can foster consumer reflex- implies precisely this: that a self-critical questioning of
ivity in relation to particular product segments, while this one’s practices should be routine. The reflexive look at
narrowed reflexivity may run in parallel to, or even facil- practices should not be a one-time happening but, if not
itate, ignorance of other product segments or of overall constantly, at least occur during repeated discrete events
consumption practices and levels (Boström and Klintman (e.g. scheduling ‘reflection’ once a month).
2008). Eco-labelling can also be used in routinized ways As mentioned earlier, theorists of reflexive govern-
or implicitly cited to excuse polluting activities in other ance do acknowledge organizational inertias and path
domains. Likewise, though the system of offsets to com- dependencies in policy development and the critique of
pensate for GHG emissions from flying may raise aware- the individualization thesis addresses that citizens are
ness and prompt reflection on travelling and mobility, it constrained by socially embedded practices. This is
could also be used in a routinized unreflexive way or as a realistic: governance and practices cannot be inces-
means to justify one’s travel habits. The frame of green santly reviewed and altered. Such never-ending review-
consumption and individual responsibility can thereby ing would end up in paralysis and a loss of ability to
narrow the view of what constitutes environmentally act. People have to use tacit, embodied, and practical
responsible behaviour and of who the ‘polluter’ is. In knowledge in their actions and practices, and routini-
this sense, eco-labelling and other means of responsibili- zation facilitates our everyday practices. Organization
zation entail a narrow view of both environmental degra- relies on stable structures (rules, division of labour,
dation and environmental protection. By the frame, control mechanisms), and this stability is a condition
reflexivity is limited, implying less reflection on structural for action capacity (Ahrne 1994). Yet, theories of
and political issues, which is exactly what the critics of reflexive governance, science, and citizens often fall
individualization as discourse point out. short in problematizing the intertwinement of reflexiv-
The notion of intraframe reflection implies that reflex- ity and routine, that is, how a practice initially based
ivity (within the frame) and unreflexivity (outside the on self-critical reflexivity over time can turn into unre-
frame) can proceed simultaneously. Reflection across flexive routines and habits. If governance structures
frames (e.g. ‘sustainable development’ vs. ‘economic and everyday life practices are institutionalized, then
growth’ or ‘natural’ vs. ‘artificial’) has more potential in the frames that underpin these structures and practices
terms of learning and transformation. Arguably, any struc- tend to become cemented. If reflexivity requires alter-
tural change in society (at least a democratic one) has to native yardsticks, or frames, with which to assess
involve elements of interframe reflection or, as Stevenson practices (i.e. interframe reflection), fixed framings
and Dryzek (2012) put it, communication between dis- will prevent reflexive learning. Organizational and cog-
courses. Interframe reflection concerns the capability to nitive inertia go together.
scrutinize both one’s own frame that underpins an activity Kemp and Loorbach (2006) argue that an incremental-
and another actor’s frame, for example, that of an ist approach to policy reform, acknowledging the rigidity
opponent: of institutional structures, does not have to be blind. Even
in such approaches, careful forward-looking efforts to
The process of frame-reflection depends in particular on avoid and escape lock-in effects are possible. Voss and
the orientations of the participants: their relative distance Kemp emphasize ‘the importance of shaping new technol-
from their objects under consideration, their willingness to ogies, social practices and institutional arrangements at an
look at things from other perspectives, their propensity
toward ‘cognitive risk taking’ coupled with their openness early stage of their development while they are still malle-
to the uncertainty associated with frame conflict. (Fischer able’ (2006, 13). Theorists of reflexive governance seem
2003, 146) to suggest the importance of identifying formative
moments when different pathways are still imaginable
In a governance process, such productive frame reflection is and feasible. This does not solve the theoretical problem,
likely to be quite demanding for participants. Adding a however. If reflexivity entails the incessant possibility that
temporal dimension, not least how actions based on reflex- the current system is fallible and may need to be changed
ivity over time often become routinized and institutionalized, based on new information (Giddens 1990, 1991), reflex-
the challenges become even more accentuated. ivity cannot be restricted to only the formative moments of
a particular practice. Though formative moments are very
important, there might well be a need for openness to
Institutionalized reflexivity – an oxymoron? ongoing, new formative moments.
Institutional reflexivity is defined by Giddens as ‘the reg- Though not impossible, institutionalized reflexivity
ularized use of knowledge about circumstances of social appears very demanding. It is one thing to facilitate reflex-
life as a constitutive element in its organization and trans- ivity at one point in time or during a limited formative
formation’ (1991, 20). However, a reflexivity that over period when alternative paths are imaginable and open for
time becomes institutionalized, in this Giddens’ sense discussion and for interframe reflection. It is quite another
(not to be confused as institutional reflexivity in terms of thing to keep this reflexivity going incessantly, and if it is
self-confrontation), appears as an oxymoron. Can reflex- feasible it could easily lead to paralysis and loss of action
ivity be routinized? The notion of reflexive governance capacity.
 Environmental Sociology 13

Conclusion: is reflexivity a useful concept for increase their reflexivity regarding something, there is a
environmental sociology? need keep a firm analytical eye on whether this cause
The literature on reflexivity connected to topics such as something else to be neglected.
expertise, governance, and consumer-citizens advances Third, if environmental sociology is to provide con-
our understanding of some of the preconditions and chal- structive critique to practice, it has more potential if it
lenges of individual and institutional movement towards addresses the embedded nature of and the conditions
sustainable development. Our review shows that reflexiv- needed for reflexivity rather than simply recommending
ity can be a useful analytical concept in environmental ‘more reflexivity’ as such. Environmental sociology could
sociology, but we advise against an exaggerated and unre- explore, critically examine, and suggest feasible structures
flexive use of the concept. Reflexivity needs be used with and practices with the potential to facilitate reflexivity.
caution, put in context, and with a firm systematic look at Indeed, theories and literature of reflexivity provide useful
its boundaries and opposites. Likewise, if reflexivity is ideas about what these conditions could be. A central
used to speak to practice, it is relevant to ask whether insight, gained from the three research areas reviewed in
the call for ‘more reflexivity’ really is helpful for decision this article, is the importance of developing meeting points,
makers and practitioners. They may develop reflexivity in social arenas, and organizational forms that enable time and
that they become aware of how their own management space for deliberations between various groups, sectors, and
approaches and social practices continue to reproduce networks, which can in turn facilitate interframe reflexivity
problems and risks, while they remain locked in organiza- and mutual learning. What is needed is to enable sensitivity
tional inertia and paralysed by current approaches. In these and learning about various structural and cultural forces at
cases, which are likely to be many, ‘more reflexivity’ does multiple levels that routinize behaviour, cement discourses,
not suffice. As an analytical concept for environmental and prevent change of institutions and practices.
sociology and as a way to speak to practice, we suggest Fourth, as well as being a tool for change, reflexivity is
instead to address reflexivity in five other ways. also a target of anti-reflexivity forces that aim to prevent
First, it is necessary to bring to attention that the change. It is therefore also crucial to address the powerful
concept of reflexivity may not always predict very well forces that deliberately and strategically counteract reflex-
how institutions and behaviour develop. We have shown ivity, which many times are the same forces that create
that theories of reflexivity are not only used in describing, environmental destruction. While some obvious forces are
understanding, and explaining what happens in environ- political and business elites with the power to dupe people
mental governance, scientific practice, and among citizens and organizations with misinformation spread via anti-
but are also often used for critically exploring what is not environmental campaigns, we must not forget those
happening and what ought to happen. Environmental broad layers of citizens inclined to celebrate their sup-
sociologists tend to use the concept as a normative yard- posed ‘green identity’ although their actions do not justify
stick in critiquing and providing constructive comments such a label. The sociological scholarship on reflexivity
on practice. The concept of reflexivity equips scholars hence must thus keep a firm eye on its opposite.
with sub-concepts and perspectives enabling them to see Finally, reflexivity is a point of departure rather than
what should be present in science, governance, and among an end in itself. It is questionable whether reflexivity is
citizens reflecting on their practices. In this way, the con- sufficient in itself as a principle to guide practice towards
cept helps to direct attention towards what is missing and more sustainability. We argue, as in the case of related
draws attention to inertia, instrumental learning, and the concepts such as precaution, deliberation and responsibil-
intertwinement of reflexivity and routine in everyday life ity, that the concept of reflexivity could serve as a starting
practices. On the other hand, the concept has also been point. Like many other concepts, it needs to be contextua-
used to examine processes of ‘going green’, including lized and specified. It is an opening for dialogue and
environmental activism, green identities, and lifestyles, as action rather than a point of closure. It begs questions
well as the development of more responsible organizations such as: What path dependencies are confronting us? Do
and governance that facilitate reflexivity. In doing so, the we have to develop new understandings, roles, and guide-
concept has helped elucidate the deliberation and learning lines to avoid reproducing problems? How do our current
that such processes involve. These two sides of the con- norms, ways of communicating, and routines prevent our
cept – used in discussing both what is present and absent imaginations from seeking and finding better practices?
in practices as well as both progress and backsliding – can Yes, reflexivity is a useful concept for environmental
be interpreted as a strength if they are reflexively applied; sociology, if not used in an unreflexive way.
that is, not as a simple call for ‘more reflexivity’.
Second, the spatial and temporal boundaries of reflex-
Acknowledgment
ivity need to be recognized, as we discussed in the fourth
A first draft of the article was presented at the international
section. Heightened reflexivity in one setting (or within a
workshop “Core Concepts in Environmental Sociology” at
particular frame or discourse) or at one point in time may Örebro University, 23–25 September 2015. We are grateful for
be accompanied by less reflexivity outside that setting or the constructive comments from workshop participants, as well
in a later phase. If organizations and people are called to as from two anonymous reviewers.
14 M. Boström et al.

Disclosure statement in a Mediated Risk Society.” Local Environment 14 (1):

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. 93–107. doi:10.1080/13549830802522582.
Bos, B., and J. Grin. 2008. ““Doing” Reflexive Modernization in
Pig Husbandry: The Hard Work of Changing the Course of a
River.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (4):
Notes 480–507. doi:10.1177/0162243907306697.
1. This notion is commonly not only associated with rational Boström, M., S. Grönholm, and B. Hassler. 2016. “The
choice but has also been associated with theories of reflex- Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea
ivity. Theories of reflexivity, however, are more prone to Governance: Towards increased reflexivity?” In
being consistent with the notion of socially and culturally Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea, edited by M.
embedded individuals, as argued below. Gilek, M. Karlsson, S. Linke, and K. Smolarz, 149–172.
Springer Open, New York: Springer.
Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2008. Eco-standards, Product
Labelling, and Green Consumerism. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Notes on contributors Macmillan.
Magnus Boström is a professor in Sociology with a research Brousseau, E., T. Dedeurwaerdere, and B. Siebenhüner, eds.
focus on environmental sociology. 2012. Reflexive Governance for Global Public Goods.
Rolf Lidskog is professor in Sociology with research interest in Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
environmental policy and politics, especially the role of expertise Cherrier, H. 2009. “Anti-Consumption Discourses and
in environmental politics. Consumer-Resistant Identities.” Journal of Business
Research 62 (2): 181–190. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.025.
Ylva Uggla is a professor in Sociology, with a research focus on Chilvers, J. 2012. “Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and
environmental sociology. Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology.”
Science Communication 35 (3): 283–310. doi:10.1177/
1075547012454598.
ORCID Connolly, J., and A. Prothero. 2008. “Green Consumption:
Magnus Boström http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7215-2623 Life-Politics, Risk and Contradictions.” Journal of Consumer
Rolf Lidskog http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6735-0011 Culture 8 (1): 117–145. doi:10.1177/1469540507086422.
Davidson, D. 2012. “Analysing Responses to Climate Change
through the Lens of Reflexivity.” The British Journal of
References Sociology 63 (4): 616–640. doi:10.1111/bjos.2012.63.issue-4.
Dawson, M. 2012. “Reviewing the Critique of Individualization:
Ahrne, G. 1994. Social Organizations: Interaction Inside, The Disembedded and Embedded Theses.” Acta Sociologica
Outside and Between Organizations. London: Sage. 55 (4): 305–319. doi:10.1177/0001699312447634.
Akenji, L. 2014. “Consumer Scapegoatism and Limits to Green Dean, M. 1999. “Risk, Calculable and Incalculable.” In Risk and
Consumerism.” Journal of Cleaner Production 63 (15): Sociocultural Theory. New Directions and Perspectives, edi-
13–23. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022. ted by D. Lupton, 131–159. Cambridge: Cambridge
Alexander, J. C.. 1996. “Critical Reflections on `Reflexive University Press.
Modernization‘.” Theory, Culture & Society 13 (4): Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford
133–138. doi:10.1177/0263276496013004009. University Press.
Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2009. “On Risk Defined as an Event Friedland, W. H., E. Ransom, and S. A. Wolf. 2010. “Agrifood
Where the Outcome is Uncertain.” Journal of Risk Research Alternatives and Reflexivity in Academic Practice.” Rural
12 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1080/13669870802488883. Sociology 75 (4): 532–537. doi:10.1111/ruso.2010.75.
Bauman, Z. 2006. Liquid Fear. Cambridge: Polity Press. issue-4.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Gale, F., and T. Cadman. 2014. “Whose Norms Prevail? Policy
Sage. Networks, International Organizations and “Sustainable
Beck, U. 1994. “The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory Forest Management”.” Society & Natural Resources 27 (2):
of Reflexive Modernization.” In Reflexive Modernization. 170–184. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.840875.
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge:
Order, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 1–55. Polity in association with Blackwell.
Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society
Beck, U. 1997. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity press.
Modernity in the Global Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Giddens, A. 1994a. “Living in a Post-Traditional Society.” In
Press. Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics
Beck, U. 2009. World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity. in the Modern Social Order, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens,
Beck, U., and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. “Losing the Traditional: and S. Lash, 59–106. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Individualization and “Precarious Freedom”.” In Giddens, A. 1994b. “Risk, Trust, Reflexivity.” In Reflexive
Individualization Institutionalized Individualism and its Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the
Social and Political Consequences, edited by U. Beck and Modern Social Order, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens, and
E. Beck-Gernsheim, 1–21. London: Sage. S. Lash, 184–197. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash, eds. 1995. Reflexive Giddens, A., and C. Pierson. 1998. Conversations with Anthony
Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Grin, J. 2006. “Reflexive Modernisation as a Governance Issue,
Blühdorn, I. 2013. “The Governance of Unsustainability: Or: Designing and Shaping Re-Structuration.” In Reflexive
Ecology and Democracy after the Post-Democratic Turn.” Governance for Sustainable Development, edited by J.-P.
Environmental Politics 22 (1): 16–36. doi:10.1080/ Voss, D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, 57–81. Cheltenham:
09644016.2013.755005. Edward Elgar.
Borne, G. 2009. “Achieving Sustainable Lifestyles or Encouraging Halkier, B. 2001. “Routinisation or Reflexivity? Consumers and
a Counter-Reflexivity: Exploring Motivations for Sustainability Normative Claims for Environmental Consideration.” In
 Environmental Sociology 15

Ordinary Consumption, edited by J. Gronow and A. Warde, Paterson, M., and J. Stripple. 2010. “My Space: Governing
25–44. London: Routledge. Individuals’ Carbon Emissions.” Environment and
Halkier, B. 2009. “A Practice Theoretical Perspective on Planning D: Society and Space 28 (2): 341–362.
Everyday Dealings with Environmental Challenges of Food doi:10.1068/d4109.
Consumption.” Anthropology of Food September: S5. Pentina, I., and C. Amos. 2011. “The Freegan Phenomenon:
Hargreaves, T. 2011. “Practice-Ing Behaviour Change: Applying Anti-Consumption or Consumer Resistance?” European
Social Practice Theory to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Journal of Marketing 45 (11/12): 1768–1778. doi:10.1108/
Change.” Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1): 79–99. 03090561111167405.
doi:10.1177/1469540510390500. Portwood-Stacer, L. 2012. “Anti-Consumption as Tactical
Hassler, B., M. Boström, and S. Grönholm. 2013. “’Towards an Resistance: Anarchists, Subculture, and Activist Strategy.”
Ecosystem Approach to Management in Regional Marine Journal of Consumer Culture 12 (1): 87–105. doi:10.1177/
Governance? the Baltic Sea Context,’.” Journal of 1469540512442029.
Environmental Policy & Planning 15 (2): 225–245. Sandlin, J. 2009. “Complicated Simplicity. Moral Identity
doi:10.1080/1523908X.2013.766420. Formation and Social Movement Learning in the Voluntary
Hilgartner, S. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Simplicity Movement.” Adult Education Quarterly 59 (4):
Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 298–317. doi:10.1177/0741713609334137.
Irwin, A. 2006. “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the Schutter, O. D., and J. Lenoble, eds. 2010. Reflexive
‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science 36 Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic
(2): 299–320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350. World. Oxford: Hart.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Shepherd, N. 2002. “Anarcho-Environmentalists: Ascetics of
Sustainable Development. London: Routledge. Late Modernity.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 2003. Misunderstanding Science? the (2): 135–157. doi:10.1177/0891241602031002002.
Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Shove, E. 2010. “Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Theories of Social Change.” Environment and Planning A
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as 42: 1273–1285. doi:10.1068/a42282.
Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Siebenhüner, B. 2011. “Transboundary Science for Transnational
Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs of Nature: Science and Democracy in Air Pollution Policies in Europe.” In Governing the Air. The
Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction, edited
University Press. by R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist, 93–122. Cambridge, MA:
Jasanoff, S. 2011. “‘Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science MIT Press.
and Global Civic Epistemology.” In The Oxford Handbook Soneryd, L., and Y. Uggla. 2015. “Green Governmentality and
of Climate Change and Society, edited by J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Responsibilization: New Forms of Governance and Responses
Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, 129–143. Oxford: Oxford to ‘Consumer Responsibility’.” Environmental Politics 24 (6):
University Press. 913–931. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1055885.
Kemp, R., and D. Loorbach. 2006. “Transition Management: A Spaargaren, G. 2003. “Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical
Reflexive Governance Approach.” In Reflexive Governance for and Environmental Policy Perspective.” Society and Natural
Sustainable Development, edited by J.-P. Voss, D. Bauknecht, Resources 16 (8): 687–701. doi:10.1080/08941920309192.
and R. Kemp, 103–130. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Stevenson, H., and J. S. Dryzek. 2012. “The Discursive
Kemp, R., and P. Martens. 2007. “Sustainable Development: Democratisation of Global Climate Governance.”
How to Manage Something that is Subjective and Never Environmental Politics 21 (2): 189–210. doi:10.1080/
Can Be Achieved?” Sustainability: Science, Practice, & 09644016.2012.651898.
Policy 3 (2): 5–14. Stolle, D., and M. Micheletti. 2013. Political Consumerism.
Kent, J. 2009. “Individualized Responsibility and Climate Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
Change: “If Climate Protection Becomes Everyone’s University Press.
Responsibility, Does it End up Being No-One’s”?” Uggla, Y., and F. Uggla. 2016. “CHANGE – The European
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 1 (3): 132–149. Commission’s Climate Campaign as Technique of
Klintman, M. 2012. Citizen-Consumers and Evolution: Reducing Government.” In Towards a Culture Politics of Climate
Environmental Harm through Our Social Motivation. Change, edited by H. Bulkeley, M. Paterson, and J.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot. Stripple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lash, S. 2000. “Risk Culture.” In The Risk Society and Beyond, Van Asselt, M. B. A., and O. Renn. 2011. “Risk Governance.”
edited by B. Adam, U. Beck, and J. Van Loon, 47–62. Journal of Risk Research 14 (4): 431–449. doi:10.1080/
London: Sage. 13669877.2011.553730.
Latour, B. 1998. “From the World of Science to the World of Van Asselt, M. B. A., and L. van Bree. 2011. “Uncertainty,
Research?” Science 280 (5361): 208–209. doi:10.1126/ Precaution and Risk Governance.” Journal of Risk Research
science.280.5361.208. 14 (4): 401–408. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.553734.
Lorenzen, J. A. 2012. “Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Voss, J.-P., D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, eds. 2006. Reflexive
Change.” Sociological Forum 27 (1): 94–116. doi:10.1111/ Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham:
j.1573-7861.2011.01303.x. Edward Elgar.
Maniates, M. F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Voss, J.-P., and B. Bornemann. 2011. “The Politics of Reflexive
Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): Governance: Challenges for Designing Adaptive
31–52. doi:10.1162/152638001316881395. Management and Transition Management.” Ecology and
Marsden, T. 2012. “Third Natures? Reconstituting Space through Society 16 (2): 9.
Place-Making Strategies for Sustainability.” International Voss, J.-P., and R. Kemp. 2006. “Sustainability and Reflexive
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 19 (2): Governance: Introduction.” In Reflexive Governance for
257–274. Sustainable Development, edited by J.-P. Voss, D.
McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2010. “Anti-reflexivity: The Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, 3–28. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
American Conservative Movement’s Success in Voss, J.-P., R. Kemp, and D. Bauknecht. 2006. “Reflexive
Undermining Climate Science and Policy.” Theory, Culture Governance: A View on an Emerging Path.” In Reflexive
& Society 27: 100–133. doi:10.1177/0263276409356001. Governance for Sustainable Development, edited by J.-P.
16 M. Boström et al.

Voss, D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, 419–437. Cheltenham: Wilson, D. 2009. The Paradoxes of Transparency. Science and
Edward Elgar. the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in
Wales, C., and G. Mythen. 2002. “Risky Discourses: The Politics Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
of GM Foods.” Environmental Politics 11 (2): 121–144. Wynne, B. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social
doi:10.1080/714000604. Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public
Walker, G., and E. Shove. 2007. “Ambivalence, Sustainability, Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304. doi:10.1088/
and the Governance of Socio-Technical Transitions.” Journal 0963-6625/1/3/004.
of Environmental Policy & Planning 9: 213–225. Wynne, B. 2005. “Risk as Globalizing “Democratic” Discourse?
doi:10.1080/15239080701622840. Framing Subjects and Citizens.” In Science and Citizens.
Warde, A. 2005. “Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, edited by
Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 131–153. doi:10.1177/ M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 66–82. London: ZED
1469540505053090. Books.
Wickson, F., and B. Wynne. 2012. “The Anglerfish Wynne, B. 2010. “‘Strange Weather, Again: Climate Science as
Deception.” EMBO Reports 13: 100–105. doi:10.1038/ Political Art.’.” Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2–3):
embor.2011.254. 289–305. doi:10.1177/0263276410361499.