INTRODUCTION

In this paper we share our experiences using a tool we call The Model of Change. We have developed this model as part of our work in different innovation projects within the energy sector to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and help us frame and understand the effects of our different efforts to change people’s behaviour. These projects include the EcoSense and VPP4SGR projects where we work closely together with computer scientists and engineers, performing cross-disciplinary analyses, to understand and affect energy consumption in different settings. However, we have also found that the model is applicable (maybe even more so) in contexts where the collaboration is less frequent and our role more peripheral and this is the type of case we will be focussing on in this paper by showing how we used the model in the Proactive Energy behaviour project (Proac).

The Model of Change draws attention to the complex interplay of context, preconditions, perception, and interaction that scope the possibilities we have to affect change and thus helps us develop better solutions. Our work with the model is based on Innovative Evaluation (Dinesen and de Wit, 2010, 2013), an evaluation approach that integrates the macro level factors (resources, activities and output) of Logical Evaluation with Pawson and Tilley’s focus on how and why these factors are interpreted, transformed and acted out at the micro level in peoples’ everyday lives (Pawson and Tilley 1997). It bings attention to the mechanisms that promote or inhibit certain types of interaction with the activities and focuses on what it is in the activities that make them work the way they do (ibid).

The Model of Change as a tool in itself does not create any effects in our collaborations: It is what we do with the model, how we do it and with whom that makes this model work. We start with an empirical example of how and with whom we do what with The Model of Change in a specific context to show how the model: a) has the potential of creating a shared framework for design and evaluation, b) enables the generation and incorporation of new insights into interdisciplinary partnerships, and thus c) broadening the scope for solutions and qualifying outcomes. In the last part of the paper we reflect upon some of the main challenges and potentials of working with this type of model.

A MODEL TO FACILITATE INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK

Working as anthropologists within the energy sector, we are often engaged in interdisciplinary projects with computer scientists and engineers who want to develop feedback systems that can provide people with better data to help them make more informed decisions, and thus use less energy.

We often see our role as anthropologists in these projects as exploratory, questioning assumptions, broadening the scope, and offering rich descriptions of contextual factors. Anthropological methods and theories provide a strong approach for addressing the why and the how of the world through a contextualisation of micro-level aspects of everyday life and change, offering an understanding of behaviour as something contextual, shaped by people’s concrete (sensory) engagements in the world (Ingold 2000, Howes 2004, Pink 2012). Our more technically skilled project partners mostly occupy a more solution-oriented role, finding the right solution for the problem and making it work.

Collaboration across these different roles or perspectives in projects can be quite challenging, because the different roles have diverse objectives and methods (Bauer 1990). Project team members have different ways of knowing (Harris 2007, Barth 2002) and often lack tools to facilitate knowledge exchange and negotiation of meaning (Wenger 1998). As Christensen points out, applying ethnographic data in a context of technology development requires appropriation and shared analytical frameworks that enable an open and systematic exploration, discussion and evaluation of the interventions we produce (Christensen 2013).

We introduce The Model of Change as one such shared analytical framework that enables us to talk about assumptions, interventions, and effects in a meaningful way that can accommodate the different types of knowledge and perspectives that partners bring to the table and helps generate new shared understandings.

Figure 1 shows the graphical outline of the model. It is divided into seven general categories that interweave the micro and macro levels of change. The headings are adjusted for every specific project or case in order to make it as meaningful as possible for the people working with the model. The one depicted here is the one we used in the Proac project.

FIGURE 1. The Model of Change developed by the Alexandra Institute

Generally the model can be explained as follows:

• Resources and technologies include both human and non-human actors such as economical, infrastructural, and technical resources available for the intervention.
• The Context for the intervention is e.g. buildings and target group descriptions.
• Change Effort or Intervention describes the activities in the intervention; what we do with the given resources in the intervention. ‘Effort’ can also be called ‘Activities’.
• Perception and Experience deals with the perception, attitude and experience that a person has of the resources that are being presented or applied in a specific manner through certain efforts or activities in a specific context.
• The Interaction describes the (inter)action that a person may or may not have with the effort or activities.
• The Outcome is what we are trying to achieve, such as reduced energy consumption or a more ‘soft’ result such as satisfaction
• Long Term Effect can be change in legislation, societal discourse etc.

When we consider all seven categories in relation to a specific intervention, we get a complete set of assumptions about how and why change is created through an intervention. This set of underlying assumptions about what will create change is called the change theory (Dinesen & de Wit, 2010, 2013). The Model of Change is the practical tool that we have developed, based on Dinesen and de Wits theoretical framework, to generate change theories together with partners. The change theories shape the design of solutions and evaluations in our projects. They are often not made explicit, which is problematic because different partners might have different change theories. This is why we need a framework, such as The Model of Change, that enables open negotiation and helps us build a shared understanding of what it is we are working towards and what will help us get there.

Having given a brief introduction to the challenges of interdisciplinary work and The Model of Change, we will now describe how we use The Model of Change in the specific context of the energy domain in the Proac project.