You are here:

Resources for Research

These resources were compiled by participants in the symposium as a starting point for new research projects in energy democracy. If you have questions or resources to add, please email Danielle Endres at

White Paper (forthcoming)

Frontiers Research Topic special issue

Listservs, blogs, and websites:


  • Angel, J. (2017). Towards an energy politics in-against-and-beyond the state: Berlin’s struggle for energy democracy. Antipode, 49(3), 557–576.
  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
  • Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67.
  • Boyd, A. D. (2017). Examining community perceptions of energy systems development: The role of communication and sense of place. Environmental Communication, 11(2), 184-204.
  • Boyd, A. D., & Paveglio, T. B. (2015). "Placing" energy development in a local context: Exploring the origins of rural community perspectives. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(2), 1-20.
  • Boyer, D. (2014). Energopower: An introduction. Anthropological Quarterly, 87(2), 309–333.
  • Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics. New York: Routledge.
  • Delina, L. (2017) Accelerating sustainable energy transition(s) in developing countries: The challenges of climate change and sustainable development. Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, USA: Routledge-Earthscan.
  • Delina, L. & Diesendorf, M. (2016) Strengthening the climate action movement: Strategies from contemporary social action campaigns. Interface8(1), 117-141.
  • Delina, L., Diesendorf, M., & Merson, J. (2014) Strengthening the climate action movement: Strategies from histories. Carbon Management, 5(4): 397-409. doi:10.1080/17583004.2015.1005396

  • de Onís, K. (2016). “Pa’ que tú lo sepas”: Experiences with Co-presence in Puerto Rico, in McKinnon S., Asen, R., Chávez, K., & Howard, R. (Eds.), Text + Field (pp. 101-116). University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

  • de Onís, C. (2017). Critiquing utopia, ubiquity, and pressure in fossil fuel(ed) rhetoric. Communication Theory. doi:10.1111/comt.12121

  • Einsiedel, E. F., Boyd, A. D., Medlock, J., & Ashworth, P. (2013). Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change. Energy Policy, 53, 149–158.
  • Endres, D., Cozen, B., Barnett, J. T., O’Byrne, M., & Peterson, T. R. (2016). Communicating energy in a climate (of) crisis. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 40 (pp. 419-447). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Endres, D. (2009). From wasteland to waste site: The role of discourse in nuclear power’s environmental injustices. Local Environment, 14(10), 917-937.
  • Fuller, S., & McCauley, D. (2016). Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Research & Social Sciences, 11, 1-8.
  • Heffron, R., McCauley, D., & Sovacool, B. (2015). Resolving society's energy trilemma through the Energy Justice Metric. Energy Policy, 87, 168-176.
  • Hess, D. J. (2016). The politics of niche-regime conflicts: Distributed solar energy in the United States. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19, 42-50.
  • Hess, D. J., & Brown, K. P. (2017). Green tea: Clean-energy conservatism as a countermovement. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 64-75.
  • Hess, D. J., Mai, Q. D., & Brown, K. P. (2016). Red states, green laws: Ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science,11, 19-28.
  • Howell, E. L., Li, N., Akin, H., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Brossard, D. (2017). How do U.S. state residents form opinions about “fracking” in social contexts? A multilevel analysis. Energy Policy, 106, 345–355.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

  • Kenis, A. (2016). Ecological citizenship and democracy: Communitarian versus agonistic perspectives. Environmental Politics, 25, 949-970.
  • Kinsella, W. J. (2015). Rearticulating nuclear power: Energy activism and contested common sense. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 346-366. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.978348
  • Kinsella, W. J., Andreas, D., & Endres, D. (2015). Communicating nuclear power: A programmatic review. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 39 (pp. 277-310). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Kinsella, W. J., Kelly, A. R., & Kittle Autry, M. (2013). Risk, regulation, and rhetorical boundaries: Claims and challenges surrounding a purported nuclear renaissance. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 278-301. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.788253
  • Kuchinskaya, O. (2014). The politics of invisibility: Public knowledge about radiation health effects after Chernobyl. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kunze, C., & Becker, S. (2014). Energy democracy in Europe. A survey and outlook. Available online:
  • Kunze, C., & Becker, S. (2015). Collective ownership in renewable energy and opportunities for sustainable degrowth. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 425–437.
  • Latour, B. (2010). An attempt at a “compositionist manifesto.” New Literary History, 41, 471-490.
  • Lohmann, L., & Hildyard, N. (2014). Energy, work and finance. Dorset, UK: Corner House. Retrieved from
  • Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. London: Verso.
  • Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and Culture, 5(1), 1.
  • O'Doherty, K., & Einsiedel, E. (Eds.). (2012). Public engagement and emerging technologies. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.
  • Paveglio, T. B., Boyd, A. D., & Carroll, M. S. (2017). Re-conceptualizing community in risk research. Journal of Risk Research, 20(7), 931-951.
  • Peeples, J., Bsumek, P. K., Schwarze, S., & Schneider, J. (2014).  Industrial apocalyptic: Neoliberalism, coal, and the burlesque frame. Rhetoric and Public Affairs17(2), 227-253.

  • Prades J., & De la Varga, A. (2016) Framing new environmental cultures for sustainability: Communication and sensemaking in three intractable multiparty conflicts in the EbreBiosfera, Spain. In Mauerhofer. V. (Ed.), Legal aspects of sustainable developmentHorizontal and sectorial policy issues (pp. 127-149). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26021-1_8

  • Prades, J., Gonzalo, J.L., De la Varga, A., & Farre, J. (2015). Public participation in radioactive waste management: Location of centralized temporary storage facilities. Papers, 100(4), 493-526.
  • Reinig, L., & Sprain, L. (2016). Cultural discourses of public engagement: Insights for energy system transformation. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Confronting the challenges of public participation: Issues in environmental, planning, and health decision-making. Proceedings of a symposium at Iowa State University, June 3-4, 2016 (pp. 167-188). Ames, IA: Science Communication Project.
  • Schneider, J., Bsumek P., Schwarze, S., and Peeples, J. (2016). Under pressure:  Coal industry rhetoric and neoliberalism. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Schwarze, S., Peeples, J., Schneider, J., & Bsumek, P. (2014).  Environmental melodrama, coal, and the politics of sustainable energy in The Last Mountain. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 17(2), 101-122.  
  • Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2013). Desperately seeking niches: Grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field. Global Environmental Change, 23, 881-891.
  • Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414.
  • Sovacool, B. K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C. K., & Wlokas, H. (2017). New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy, 105, 677–691.
  • Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. (2014). Energy justice: Problems, principles, practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy, 1(16024). doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2016.24
  • Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 536-572.
  • Stirling, A. (2014). Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 83–95.
  • Tarhan, M. D. (2017). Renewable energy co-operatives and energy democracy: A critical perspective. Presented at the Canadian Association for Studies in Co-operation, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from
  • van der Schoor, T., van Lente, H., Scholtens, B., & Peine, A. (2016). Challenging obduracy: How local communities transform the energy system. Energy Research & Social Science13, 94-105.
  • Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H., & Evans, B. (2009). Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy, 38, 2655–2663.

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 121–136.
  • Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Runge, K. K., Su, L. Y.-F., … Corley, E. A. (2014). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727–736.
  • Yeo, S. K., Xenos, M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2015). Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. In E. Suhay & J. N. Druckman (Eds.), The politics of science: Political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge (Vol. 658, pp. 172–191). The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Retrieved from
  • Yildiz, Ö., Rommel, J., Debor, S., Holstenkamp, L., Mey, F., Muller, J. R., …, Rognli, J. (2015). Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 59–73.


Resources for Research

Participants Page


Symposium Schedule


Last Updated: 9/13/18