The Good-by-Devicing project has an interest in exploring how present-day configuration of valuation might change into the 'good' fossil-free economy might be valued otherwise. The aim is to experiment with inclusion of social concerns in valuation devices, creating spaces for critique and participation and potentially reconfiguring existing networks of expertise.
Findings from previous work packages will here be used to formulate and discuss concrete suggestions that may lead to a better understanding of valuations. The focus is on how different devices can include otherwise marginalised concerns around the energy island vision of Bornholm.
A “data sprint collective” will be held at the digital TANTLab facility at Aalborg University where a smaller group of members from both entrenched and alternative networks of expertise will be invited to explore alternative valuations of what should be included and excluded in the design of the Energy Island Bornholm. This will occur during the final phase of the project and involve the scientific advisory committee meeting up one final time for a scientific workshop to discuss findings and theoretical and empirical implications.
Exposing the existing network of techno-economic expertise to alternative modes of valuation to potentially recompose quantitative valuation with qualitative valuation is one of the novelties developed through Good-by-Devicing.
In order to define potential inclusion the prevalent black-boxed processes of marginalisation of concerns should be opened in order to detect and categorise sources of marginalisation. Some concerns may be inadvertently overlooked by entrenched networks of expertise; others may be realised but valued as either non-worthy of inclusion; or difficult or impossible to translate into valuation devices. Marginalisation and potential inclusion processes will be compared across:
Technology and energy carriers: wind power and Power-to-X
Valuation devices (energy scenarios, digital twins, and procurement instruments)
Networks of expertise
Questions will undoubtedly arise such as: ‘Who could be responsible for initiating change processes?’ This stresses the importance of not pointing fingers at individuals but rather consider systemic aspects of how concerns, expertise, and devices can change over time. These reflections will be taken into the larger debate connecting to the more general conceptualisation, considering critically the (dis)ability to ‘do good (or better) by (re)devicing’.