Phase 3: Experiencing control

So far, the approaches discussed are concerned with people’s attitudes and preferences in relation to DSR based on hypothetical products and scenarios. The focus of research question 4 is on people’s actual experience of DSR, and how this might compare to their expectations. Collecting data based on people’s experiences of innovative DSR offerings is challenging because such offerings are not yet available on the market in Great Britain. As such, undertaking study on a representative sample of the population would be impractical. Furthermore, because experience of such tariffs is extremely limited in Great Britain, an approach which allows exploratory research as well as testing the findings of the previous phases of work presented here is appropriate. This situation lends itself to a case study approach. Swanborn (2010: 13) defines case studies as usually possessing the following characteristics (summarized):

• ‘carried out within the boundaries of one social system (the case), or within the boundaries of a few social systems (the cases)’

• ‘in the case’s natural context’

• ‘by monitoring the phenomenon during a certain period or … by collecting information afterwards’

• ‘in which the researcher focuses on process-tracing’

• ‘using several data sources’

It is first necessary to determine the criteria for case (or cases) selection. At the most basic level, for the case to be relevant to the research population as defined above it must be located within Great Britain and involve people who are wholly or partly responsible for paying energy bills. Temporally, research access must span the introduction of an innovative DSR programme such that participants will be able to share views on both their expectations and subsequent experiences of DSR. For the purposes of this stage of the research, ‘innovative DSR’ is understood quite broadly and could involve either a novel DSR tariff, new approaches to automating response to DSR signals, or direct load control programmes. Finally it must be possible to undertake the research within the constraints of a PhD schedule and resources. On the basis of the latter point it was not feasible to implement a bespoke DSR trial for the purposes of this project. Rather, it was decided to seek a partner with existing trial plans and collaborate with them to address the research

76

question. A number of possible collaborators were identified through professional and personal networks:

1. A trial involving the installation of modern electric storage heaters with direct load control in social housing in an island location in the north of Scotland.

2. A trial of energy efficiency interventions and time of use pricing focused on fuel poor customers in south-eastern England.

3. A trial of an ‘intelligent’ heat pump control system able to respond to time of use pricing and direct load control signals, focused mainly on older social tenants in the south-west of England.

Discussions with coordinators of the first two projects revealed that either other social research was already planned for the project (project 1), or the project timescale did not fit with that required for the current research (project 2). Project 3 had only very limited plans to include a social research element and was scheduled to take place with the timescale of the current research. It therefore fit the basic criteria for case study selection. More information about the trial is provided in chapter 6.

The research conducted as part of the case study consisted of pre- and post-trial surveys and interviews. The research question specifically focuses on a comparison between people’s expectations and experiences of DSR. As such, data collection before and after exposure to DSR was necessary. A quantitative approach was required as it would facilitate statistical comparison between these two conditions, which would be a powerful way to demonstrate difference (or lack of it) before and after exposure to DSR. This could involve either observation of actual behaviour or self-reporting of behaviour and/or attitudes via a survey procedure. While physical monitoring conducted as part of the trial did allow some direct observation of participant response to DSR activity, that work falls beyond the scope of this thesis¹³. To provide context to this physical monitoring and to measure subjective responses to the control system being trialled, a survey was therefore considered necessary. Pre- and post-trial postal surveys were already part of the project work plan – the existing focus was on household composition and general experience of the new control system. The opportunity was available to add a limited number of additional questions to the survey with a focus on DSR – these are discussed in detail in chapter 6. The intention was also to allow direct comparison with the

13 A paper is currently being co-authored which draws on the results of both physical monitoring and the social research described here.

77

results of the survey experiment described above. A postal survey was selected by the trial coordinators rather than other format (e.g. online, as above) principally because the majority of participants were expected to be older people and therefore less likely to have access to an Internet-enabled device (Ofcom, 2014).

The aim of the qualitative part of the research was to understand the reasons underlying participants’ attitudes towards DSR before and after the trial. It employed a combination of individual pre-trial interviews and household post-trial interviews.

As for the initial stage of qualitative research described above, the main method options available were either individual or group interviews (the latter including focus groups). Whereas the previous stage of research principally aimed to generate a range of subjects for further study (i.e. different aspects of control), this stage was very much focused on understanding individuals’ own expectations and experiences. The benefits that focus groups allow, such as allowing group members to complement and challenge each other’s viewpoints, are not as prominent here.

Individual or household interviews would give participants the time and space to share their own frank views on motivations and concerns around DSR without fear of being challenged by others. Practically speaking, while the trial homes were all located in the south-west of England , they were dispersed over a number of locations and even within these the distance between individual homes was sometimes quite high (e.g. tens of miles). Combined with the consideration that some older residents might not still drive regularly, individual or household interviews were viewed as the more practical solution over focus groups which would require participants to travel to a central location.

The pre-trial interviews were conducted over the telephone. This medium of data collection was considered optimal for a number of reasons. The pre-trial interviews were intentionally kept quite brief – long enough to record information on people’s experience of their current system and expectations of the new one, but short enough to minimize inconvenience and avoid deterring participants from taking part in the (longer) post-trial interviews. Irvine et al. (2013), who conducted a comparative study of telephone and face-to-face interviews, found that telephone interviews tended to be shorter because participants went into less detail in their responses. However, studies have consistently found that there are not major differences in the content of data collected between telephone interviews and the variety of other interview modes (e.g. Brustad et al., 2003; Pettigrew et al., 2003;

Block & Erskine, 2012). It was also anticipated that face-to-face interviews would be more of an imposition on participants and should only be undertaken once in the

78

study. Because the study homes were quite widely geographically spaced, the cost and time required to visit them all for a relatively short interview was not considered justified. Finally, because it was intended to visit a selection of participants for face-to-face post-trial interviews (see below), this later visit was expected to provide an opportunity to observe and explore in person points which the participants had made in pre-trial interviews.

Post-trial interviews were conducted face-to-face in participants’ homes, with a request that as many household members be present as possible. As suggested above, conducting in-home interviews would provide an opportunity to observe participants using the control system and pointing out other characteristics of their home that they considered relevant to the interview. Face-to-face interviews also allow the inverse of the point suggested for telephone interviews (i.e. by Irvine et al.

(2013)) – that is, participants may go into greater detail in their responses. They also improve the possibility of building a rapport between interviewer and interviewee, and allow extra cues (e.g. intonation, body language) to be picked up that might be missed in other modes of interview (Opdenakker, 2006) – these can act as prompts to explore subject further or to avoid them. Household interviews have been shown to be useful in reducing participant concerns and increasing their confidence, while also helping to shed some light on the household dynamics that can influence choices that impact or are otherwise related to home energy use (Valentine, 1999). The interviews were led by the author, but attended by a representative of the company coordinating the trial who took notes and also participated in the discussion at times. While it was recognised that having a representative of the company present may risk inhibiting participants from sharing their frank views, it was considered necessary from the point of view of risk assessment (both for researchers and participants), to provide expert input of the system where necessary, and to assist in note-taking.