Sistema con amortiguador

The question of who counts as an expert is an important consideration for this research. There is not universally agreed definition of what constitutes an ‘expert’ on any partic-

CHAPTER 3

ular field or topic (Lowe and Lorenzoni , 2007), and with increasing public engagement and interest in many areas, it has been argued that the barriers between experts and the public have begun to dissolve (Collins and Evans, 2002). Collins and Evans (2002) also argue that an expert could be defined not only through the expertise, knowledge or experience of working in a certain area, but also through their lived experience of it. However, a more practical approach was adopted within this research, on the basis that sampling should proceed on the basis of who is best able to answer the research questions of the study. For this reason a diverse sample of experts was deemed most appropriate, based on their experience of housing and energy issues in one or more of the following categories: Government Policy; Industry and Architecture; Academia and Research; or Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

With the aim of recruiting a broad range of relevant experts from housing and energy sectors, an initial list of around 30 relevant organisations was drawn up. From this it was then possible to begin to identify individual experts to contact via a range of different methods, including utilising personal contacts and recommendations, searching organisational websites, and attending industry events. A flexible theoretical sampling strategy was then used to identify the expert participants that would allow the sample to evolve over time in response to emerging themes within the interview data (Koerber and McMichael , 2008). Developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), theoretical sampling is strongly associated with the analytical grounded theory method utilised within this research (see below). This strategy involves the simultaneous collection and analysis of data, with the aim of continuing to increase the sample size until theoretical saturation is reached and no new themes or relationships are arising within the data (Bryman, 2008). Considering the broad range of experts identified as relevant to this research topic, it was difficult to know if full saturation had been reached (as it would always be possible to broaden the sample further). A periodic assessment of the data collected was thus made to identify whether any major new themes were arising, and eventually allow for the assumption of data saturation and confidence that the data set collected

was suitable for answering the research questions posed. For this reason, during the later stages of the process, the interview sample was broadened to incorporate a small additional sample (3 participants) who had extensive personal experience surrounding the issue of reducing emissions from housing, but who may not have been included had the sample remained focused only on industry and policy related professionals (following Collins and Evans, 2002).

Each expert was initially contacted via email, which included an official letter of invitation to participants within the research (Appendix A), as well as a detailed project information sheet (Appendix A). Whilst this strategy was ultimately effec- tive in achieving a diverse sample of experts, it was also extremely time consuming, requiring continuous assessment of the sample and consideration of additional options and opportunities for recruitment, as many of my initial enquiries received no reply. In addition, it was important to ensure the sample remained as balanced and diverse as possible. Specifically, this concern led to a reassessment after conducting around half the total interviews, as it became clear that a number of areas of expertise may have been neglected, including experts in retrofitting existing homes, the social housing sector and sustainable living more broadly. However, some biases were inevitably introduced into the sample due to difficulties in gaining access to certain organisations, the most prominent of these is the Department for Communities and Local Government, who despite repeated efforts, were not available for interview. In such cases, a special effort was made to include the organisation’s publications within the review of policy documentation, in order to balance this absence in the interview data.

In total, 22 expert interviews were conducted over a period of 9 months from May 2013 to February 2014. Of these, 10 experts were recruited following recommendations from my supervisors, Prof. Nick Pidgeon and Dr. Christina Hopfe, due to their extensive contacts in the field. In some cases, this involved them acting as gatekeepers to enquire as to the possibility of an interview on my behalf, while in others I initiated contact myself via email. Further to this, I was able to identify and contact 7 relevant

CHAPTER 3

Table 3.1: Participant’s primary areas of expertise (secondary areas of expertise included in brackets).

Areas of expertise Experts Housing and energy policy 6 (3) Industry and architecture 6 (1) Academia and research 3 (1) Campaigning and lobbying 4 (3) Sustainable Living 3 (0)

individuals via their online contact details. I was also able to gain access to a further 3 organisations, which had previously been unresponsive, through my attendance at the EcoBuild conference in March 2013. Snowball sampling, where participants are asked to suggest other appropriate experts, was also employed, leading to a further 2 interviews.

The areas of expertise covered by the participants within this research are summarised in Table 3.1. Many participants could also be described as experts in more than one field, and held secondary areas of expertise. Whilst for some this was due to a cross- over within the boundaries of their position, many participants had extensive experience working in their field (commonly 20-30 years) and had previously held positions that were also of relevance to this research. Although it was not possible to ensure that true theoretical saturation was achieved, due to the broad and complex nature of the issues of decarbonisation and low carbon housing, at this stage, the broad cross-section of professionals interviewed was deemed to be sufficient to answer the research questions posed.

3.4

Phase 3: Exploring public discourses of low carbon