References
- Akrich, M. (1992).
The de-scription of technical objects . In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242461431_The_De-scription_of_Technical_Objects - Amaral, A. R., Rodrigues, E., Gaspar, A. R., & Gomes, Á. (2018). Review on performance aspects of nearly zero-energy districts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 406–420. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.039
- Arora, S., Van Dyck, B., Sharma, D., & Stirling, A. (2020). Control, care, and conviviality in the politics of technology for sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 247–262. DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2020.1816687
- Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
- Bijker, W. E., & D’Andrea, L. (2009).
Handbook on the socialisation of scientific and technological research . A tool for promoting science and technology socialisation policies addressed to policy makers, research and innovation actors and stakeholders. European Union.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256547440_Handbook_on_the_Socialisation_of_Scientific_and_Technological_Research_A_tool_for_promoting_science_and_technology_socialisation_policies_addressed_to_policy_makers_research_and_innovation_actors_and_/link/58cb990aaca2727749ed9 - Brozovsky, J., Gustavsen, A., & Gaitani, N. (2021). Zero emission neighbourhoods and positive energy districts—A state-of-the-art review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 72,
103013 . DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103013 - Chambers, D. (2022). Attuning smart home scripts to household and energy care. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), 663–676. DOI: 10.5334/bc.220
- Eidenskog, M. (2021). Careful place: Matters of care built into the socially sustainable city district. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 9(1), 26–38. DOI: 10.5324/njsts.v9i1.3439
- Guy, S., & Farmer, G. (2001). Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3), 140–148. DOI: 10.1162/10464880152632451
- Hagen, B., Nassar, C., & Pijawka, D. (2017). The social dimension of sustainable neighborhood design: comparing two neighborhoods in Freiburg, Germany. Urban Planning, 2(4), 64–80. DOI: 10.17645/up.v2i4.1035
- Hauge, Å. L., Thomsen, J., & Berker, T. (2011). User evaluations of energy efficient buildings: Literature review and further research. Advances in Building Energy Research, 5(1), 109–127. DOI: 10.1080/17512549.2011.582350
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
- Lie, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (1996). Making technology our own?: Domesticating technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University Press.
- Macnaughten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781446217337
- Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge.
- Müller, S., Brown, A., & Ölz, S. (2011). Renewable energy policy considerations for deploying renewables. International Energy Agency (IEA).
- Østby, P. (1995). Flukten fra Detroit: Bilens integrasjon i det norske samfunnet. Historisk-filosofiske fakultet, AVH.
- Pinch, T. (2003).
Giving birth to new users: How the minimoog was sold to rock and roll . In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 247–270). MIT Press. - Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed., pp. xxiii, 432). Sage.
- Ryghaug, M., & Skjølsvold, T. M. (2021). Pilot society and the energy transition: The co-shaping of innovation, participation, and politics (p. 130). Springer Nature. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61184-2
- Shirani, F., O’Sullivan, K., Henwood, K., Hale, R., & Pidgeon, N. (2022). Living in an active home: Household dynamics and unintended consequences. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), 589–604. DOI: 10.5334/bc.216
- Shirazi, M. R., Keivani, R., Brownill, S., & Butina Watson, G. (2022). Promoting social sustainability of urban neighbourhoods: The case of Bethnal Green, London. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 46(3), 441–465. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12946
- Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992).
Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household . In R. Silverstore & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies. Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 13–28). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203401491_chapter_1 - Skjølsvold, T. M. (2012).
Towards a new sociology of innovation: The case of bioenergy in Norway and Sweden . (Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology). - Skjølsvold, T. M. (2014). Back to the futures: Retrospecting the prospects of smart grid technology. Futures, 63, 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.001
- Sørensen, K. (2006).
Domestication: the enactment of technology . In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie & K. J. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 40–61). Open University Press. - Sørensen, K. H. (2013). Beyond innovation. Towards an extended framework for analysing technology policy. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 1(1). DOI: 10.5324/njsts.v1i1.2122
- Sørensen, K. H. (2023).
Processes of incorporation. The relationship between socialisation and domestication of technoscience . In M. Hartmann (Ed.), The Routledge handbook on media and technology domestication (pp. 182–196). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003265931-19 - SSB. (2021). Housing conditions, register-based. Statistics Norway.
https://www.ssb.no/bygg-bolig-og-eiendom/bolig-og-boforhold/statistikk/boforhold-registerbasert - Stirling, A. (2019/2021).
Engineering and sustainability: Control and care in unfoldings of modernity [2019] . In D. P. Michelfelder & N. Doorn (Eds.), The Routledge handbook to the philosophy of engineering (ch. 34). Routledge. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3336826 - The Research Council of Norway. (2021). Midway evaluation of eight Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research.
https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/2021/midway-evaluation-of-eight-centres-for-environment-friendly-energy-research-.pdf - Thomsen, J., Gullbrekken, L., Grynning, S., & Holme, J. (2017). Evaluering av boliger med lavt energibehov (EBLE). SINTEF akademisk forelag.
- Wiik, M. K., Homaei, S., Lien, S. K., Fjellheim, K., Vandervaeren, C., Fufa, S. M., Baer, D., Sartori, I., Nordström, T., Meland, S., Cheng, C., & Thomsen, J. (2022). The ZEN definition—A guideline for the ZEN pilot areas. Version 3.0 (report no. 44-2022). Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) & SINTEF Community.
- Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. Sociological Review, 38(1_Suppl.), 58–99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x
- Woods, R., & Berker, T. (2021).
Norwegian pilots: Navigating the technological logic of sustainable architecture . In M. Stender, C. Bech-Danielsen & A. L. Hagen (Eds.), Architectural anthropology (pp. 237–249). Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2108254 - Woods, R., & Berker, T. (2022). Homelife in a Norwegian forest: A rural approach to the sustainable transition. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18(1), 636–650. DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2108254
- Woods, R., Remøe, K. S., Hestnes, A. G., & Gustavsen, A. (2019). Annual report 2018 (ZEN report). Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) & SINTEF.