REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references
Sustainability concepts for digital research infrastructures developed through ground-level stakeholder empowerment
T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a guided, expert-integrated, interactive workshop series can give ground-level stakeholders of a national digital research infrastructure a purposeful voice in shaping their own net zero future.
desk verdict An honest, clearly written case study of a participatory workshop series for UKRI DRI net zero; the qualitative recommendations are useful, but the quantitative knowledge-gain claim is not yet supported by the data. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The machinery that carries the argument is the workshop series design itself, presented as a repeatable method rather than a one-off event. Workshop 1 defines energy consumption and efficiency in the DRI; Workshop 2 introduces embedded fossil fuels, scope 1-3 emissions, and a cap-and-share thought experiment; Workshop 3 translates the discussion into individualized action plans built on the five 'W' questions (what, who, when, where, why). The design's load-bearing feature is the pairing of expert input with facilitated breakout rooms, which connects the high-level problem of net zero to each participant's daily work environment and gives the community a structured format for producing recommendations. The pre/post surveys are the instrument that converts this experience into the reported knowledge gains.
What would settle it
Compare a group that completes the three-workshop series against a control group that receives only the workshop reading materials, scoring both on a rubric-based ability to draft a concrete net zero action plan before and after; or track whether the action plans written in Workshop 3 actually lead to changes in energy use, procurement, or community practice within a year. If knowledge scores rise without any improvement in plan quality, or if none of the plans are ever implemented, the central claim that the workshops create bottom-up agency would be contradicted.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a three-workshop series can give a dispersed stakeholder community the means to define its own net zero problems and to propose concrete solutions. The sequence starts with the high-level problem of unsustainable energy and fossil-fuel consumption, connects it to the ground-level circumstances of DRI users, developers, and infrastructure providers, and ends with each participant writing a personal action plan under five 'W' prompts. The evidence offered is the contrast between pre- and post-workshop surveys, in which self-assessed knowledge of building a net zero action plan rose steadily from 5.92 to 8.70 on a 10-point scale, alongside a set of synthesized recommendations covering resource monitoring, green scheduling, data reuse, procurement, and community behavior. The authors are careful to state that the workshops did not alter intentions to act, and that only eight participants completed the full series, so the demonstrated effect is on knowledge and voice rather than on measured behavior.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the self-reported Likert scores, drawn from a small self-selected group that shrank from 24 to 8 respondents, measure a genuine gain in knowledge and agency caused by the workshop design rather than selective retention, social desirability, or simply learning what to say.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The same three-workshop sequence can be reused by other research-infrastructure communities to generate net zero recommendations without waiting for top-down policy.
- The specific recommendations produced—carbon-aware scheduling, power and carbon monitoring, data reuse, green procurement, and cap-and-share workload policies—are candidates for direct incorporation into institutional net zero strategies.
- The format should be most effective when each workshop narrows from a system-level problem to individual action, since the reported gains come from connecting high-level targets to participants' own roles.
- Organizers of similar series should expect knowledge scores to rise but intentions to act to stay flat, implying that institutional support is needed to convert the resulting knowledge and action plans into real changes.
Reading between the lines
- A natural extension the paper leaves untested: the same format could be applied to other communities with distributed net zero expertise—university campuses, hospital trusts, or local authorities—where the missing mechanism is convening rather than knowledge.
- Because the knowledge measure is self-reported, the paper's own logic implies that the decisive follow-up is to score actual action-plan quality before and after the series, or to track whether the plans written in Workshop 3 are implemented within a year.
- The senior, self-selected sample suggests a structural risk that such workshops amplify the voices of those already committed to net zero; testing the format with junior staff and with disciplines outside the computationally intensive ones would show whether it creates new agency or reinforces existing enthusiasm.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper reports on a three-session online workshop series run with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) stakeholders, aimed at co-creating net-zero action plans and recommendations for a bottom-up sustainable transition. The authors describe the workshop design, present qualitative themes from action plans and transcripts, and report survey results that they interpret as showing increased participant knowledge about developing work-related net-zero action plans. They claim that the workshop series gives stakeholders a purposeful voice, creates bottom-up agency for climate action, and can complement top-down policy. The paper also positions the workshop recommendations as inputs to the UKRI Net Zero DRI scoping project.
Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the workshop series offers a low-cost, transferable format for engaging ground-level stakeholders in sustainability transitions of research infrastructure, a topic of growing policy importance. The paper's strengths include a detailed and honest description of the workshop design, a transparent acknowledgment of several limitations in the Conclusion, and the fact that the qualitative recommendations were fed into an independent UKRI scoping report. The paper also provides a useful synthesis of stakeholder-generated actions. However, the quantitative evidence for the load-bearing claim that the workshops 'advance knowledge' and create 'agency' is weak: it rests on self-report Likert data from a small, self-selected, and attrition-prone sample, with no paired statistical analysis. The qualitative material is valuable, but the strength of the central claim currently exceeds what the evidence supports.
major comments (4)
- [Section 3.3 and Table 2] The claim that knowledge improved 'based on the 8 participants that fully completed the series' is not supported by the data as presented. Table 2 reports N=24, N=29, N=16, and N=10 for the successive waves, with no paired pre-post statistics for the 8 completers. Please report the paired data for that subsample, or clarify the actual N for each comparison, and provide a paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) with effect size. Without this, the mean increase from 5.92 to 8.70 may simply reflect differential attrition rather than a genuine learning effect.
- [Section 3.3, Table 2, knowledge item] The knowledge measure ('How would you rate your current knowledge of developing your own work-related net zero action plan?') was re-administered immediately after Workshop 3, in which participants had just been guided to develop such an action plan. The observed increase may therefore reflect task familiarity or rehearsal of the specific workshop exercise rather than a durable gain in sustainability knowledge or carbon/energy literacy. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this content-overlap confound, or reanalyze using a measure that is not so directly tied to the workshop task.
- [Abstract and Section 4.3] The conclusion that the workshop design is 'impactful on creating bottom-up agency' is not supported by the survey constructs reported in Table 2: intentions to act and perceived control show no reported significant change across the workshop series, and no behavioral outcome is measured. The action plans are a required workshop deliverable, so their existence cannot independently evidence empowerment. I recommend either softening the agency claim to something like 'participants self-reported increased knowledge and produced co-designed action plans' or providing additional evidence, such as follow-up behavioral data or a qualitative analysis of participants' own accounts of agency.
- [Section 2.1 and Conclusion] Attrition is a serious threat to the knowledge-gain claim: the sample drops from N=24 at baseline to N=10 after Workshop 3, and the participants who remained were likely more engaged and motivated. The paper notes the small sample but does not examine whether completers differ from non-completers on baseline characteristics (e.g., initial knowledge, job role, council affiliation). Please add such a comparison, or discuss explicitly how attrition could explain the observed means.
minor comments (6)
- [Introduction, first paragraph after the abstract] There is a typo in 'the development a workshop series'; it should read 'the development of a workshop series'.
- [Section 2.2.3, Figure 1] Figure 1, the 5-W action plan framework, is referenced in the text but does not appear in the manuscript body; please check that the figure is included and that its contents are clearly explained.
- [Section 3.3 and Appendix, Table 2] The survey constructs are described only briefly in the text. Please provide the exact item wording, response scale endpoints, and timing (pre-workshop, after each workshop) in an appendix, so that readers can assess the measures.
- [Supplementary Material] The statement that supplementary material 'can be accessed on request' is impractical for readers; a stable repository link or a detailed description of the toolkit and action plan templates should be provided.
- [Section 6, References] The reference 'Ross and Lorna, 2022' is incomplete (no title, journal, or publisher). Please provide full bibliographic details.
- [Throughout] The term 'downshift' is used frequently but not defined until the discussion of fossil-fuel phaseout in Section 2.2.2; please define it at first use in the Introduction or Methods.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the paper's claims are qualitative, self-contained, and independently anchored.
full rationale
The paper makes no mathematical derivation and fits no parameters, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional reduction in the technical sense. The central claim—that a guided, expert-integrated, interactive, and problem-focused workshop series can give voice to stakeholders—is supported by workshop outputs, transcripts, recommendations, and self-report surveys, not by a result defined in terms of itself. The closest candidate is the knowledge-gain claim in Section 3.3, where the survey item ('How would you rate your current knowledge of developing your own work-related net zero action plan?') follows Workshop 3, in which participants developed such action plans. However, this is a measurement-validity concern, not a circular derivation: the self-reported knowledge rating is not identical to the workshop task, and the paper does not reduce its conclusion to that single item. The self-citations to the authors' own project report (Manika et al., 2022) are limited to reproducing participant demographic data (Table 1) and documenting recommendations; they are not load-bearing for the central argument. The recommendations were passed to and independently synthesized in the UKRI Net Zero DRI scoping project final technical report (Juckes et al., 2023), providing an external anchor. Limitations are openly acknowledged in Section 5, including the small, non-random sample and the need for more robust statistical analyses, but these are not circularity. No uniqueness theorem, imported ansatz, or renamed known result is present. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and not circular.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption UKRI DRI must reach net zero by 2040, and an 80% fossil-fuel downshift is required by climate science.
- domain assumption Participatory, co-designed stakeholder processes improve sustainability outcomes.
- ad hoc to paper Self-reported survey knowledge scores are a valid proxy for actionable knowledge and empowerment.
- domain assumption The snowball-recruited sample is sufficient to produce meaningful qualitative insights about the UKRI DRI community.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Sustainability concepts for digital research infrastructures developed through ground-level stakeholder empowerment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWNPEMKT
@misc{pith2026241114301,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Sustainability concepts for digital research infrastructures developed through ground-level stakeholder empowerment},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWNPEMKT}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14301}
}
read the original abstract
The UK Research and Innovation Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) needs to operate sustainably in the future, encompassing its use of energy and resources, and embedded computer hardware carbon emissions. Transition concepts towards less unsustainable operations will inform the future design and operations of DRI. A problem remains that, while the skills and knowledge for solving net zero challenges already exist within the UK's DRI community, the mechanisms for sharing them and enabling behavior change are missing. Without adopting community-driven approaches, individual stakeholders may feel isolated and uncertain about how to play their role in the transition. A research programme was funded to give voice to the ground-level stakeholders of the DRI ecosystem for the co-creation of carbon downshift concepts. This article presents the results of the programme, with the goal to inform a fair and just transition from the ground-level, complementing the top-down interventions of energy efficiency policies and renewable energies integration. A workshop-based innovation method was developed for researching stakeholder recommendations and perspectives on the sustainable transition of the UK's DRI. We find that giving a purposeful voice to the stakeholders for shaping their own future sustainable DRI environment can be achieved by a guided, expert-integrated, interactive and problem-focused workshop series. The chosen workshop design is impactful on creating bottom-up agency for climate action by first defining the high-level problems of unsustainability in energy and fossil-fuel consumption, and then connecting them to the ground-level circumstances of DRI stakeholders. This approach to stakeholder management should initiate a sustainable transition that promises to kick-start impactful changes from within communities, adding to high-level efforts from economics, policy, and governance.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Sustainability concepts for digital research infrastructures developed through ground-level stakeholder empowerment Florian Ahrens1*, Dawn Geatches2, Niall McCarroll3, Justin Buck4, Alvaro Lorenzo-Lopez4, Hossein Keshtkar5, Nadine Fayyad5, Hamidreza Hassanloo5, Danae Manika5 1 International Centre for Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Orkney Camp...
work page 2022
-
[3]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-022-00097-y Dorst, K., Cross, N.,
-
[5]
Recognize shared responsibility
to take into account the embedded carbon cost of their manufacture as well as their energy consumption. Cap-and-share policies for managing computing workloads were discussed in the workshops and considered to be important. This group of recommendations contribute to the toolkit themes “Recognize shared responsibility”, “Mission Focus” and “Working with p...
work page 2018
-
[8]
Optimizing Server Refresh Cycles: The Case for Circular Economy With an Aging Moore’s Law. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Comput. 7, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSUSC.2020.3035234 Boulton, J.,
arXiv 2020
-
[9]
Value and NetZero Decision Making. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7692856 Brockway, P.E., Sorrell, S., Semieniuk, G., Heun, M.K., Court, V.,
-
[11]
Transforming the stories we tell about climate change: from ‘issue’ to ‘action.’ Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 015002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abcd5a Desing, H., Widmer, R.,
-
[14]
IRISCAST: Final Report. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7692451 Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., Dekoninck, E.,
-
[18]
Sustainability in Digital Research Infrastructure: UKRI Net Zero DRI Scoping Project final technical report. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8199984 Kalt, G., Thunshirn, P., Krausmann, F., Haberl, H.,
Show all 33 references
-
[19]
Material requirements of global electricity sector pathways to 2050 and associated greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod
-
[20]
Implications of net energy-return-on-investment for a low-carbon energy transition. Nat. Energy 3, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0116-1 16 Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J.,
-
[22]
https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6787567 Murphy, T.W.,
Go Zero- Giving Voice to, and Empowering Stakeholders of UKRI DRI: A Net Zero Workshop Series (Go Zero). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6787567 Murphy, T.W.,
-
[23]
Limits to economic growth. Nat. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01652-6 Pohl, J., Höfner, A., Albers, E., Rohde, F.,
-
[24]
Design Options for Long-lasting, Efficient and Open Hardware and Software. Ökol. Wirtsch. - Fachz. 36, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.14512/OEWO360120 Reynolds-Cuéllar, P., Delgado Ramos, D.,
-
[25]
Community-Based Technology Co-Design: Insights on Participation, and the Value of the “Co,” in: Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume
2020
-
[26]
Presented at the PDC ’20: Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation Otherwise, ACM, Manizales Colombia, pp. 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385030 Ross, A., Lorna, C.,
2020
-
[27]
GAIA - Ecol
Structure Matters: Real-World Laboratories as a New Type of Large-Scale Research Infrastructure: A Framework Inspired by Giddens’ Structuration Theory. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 27, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.5 Shaw, A., Sheppard, S., Burch, S., Flanders...
-
[30]
Science 367, 30–33
Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. Science 367, 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz6003 Turner, A., Basden, A.,
-
[31]
HPC-JEEP: Energy Usage on ARCHER2 and the DiRAC COSMA HPC services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7137390 Watari, T., Nansai, K., Nakajima, K.,
-
[32]
Major metals demand, supply, and environmental impacts to 2100: A critical review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105107 Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten,...
2020
-
[60]
leftover
Most participants held a PhD, and are active in a senior role in their organisation. The geographic location of most participants was the UK with some being located in France, China, or Poland. Detailed information about the participants of workshop 1 can be found in Table 1 i...
2023
-
[2001]
Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des. Stud. 22, 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6 Hays, J., Walton, N., Jackson, A., Mudaraddi, A., Packer, A., Owen, R.A.,
-
[2008]
Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des. Stud. 29, 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001 Huang, P., Copertaro, B., Zhang, X., Shen, J., Löfgren, I., Rönnelid, M., Fahlen, J., Ander...
2008 doi
-
[2009]
Making local futures tangible—Synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.002 Simon, H.A.,
2009 doi
-
[2012]
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x Manika, Danae, McCarroll, Niall, Buck, Justin, Lopez, Alvaro Lorenzo, Geatches, Dawn, Ahrens, Florian, Krumdieck, Susan...
-
[2016]
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 7 Supplementary Material The supplementary material comprise the devised action plans and the developed workshop toolkit. Anonymised workshop ...
2016 doi
-
[2017]
Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) perspective. Ecol. Soc. 22, art14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08826-220114 Bashroush, R., Rteil, N., Kenny, R., Wynne, A.,
-
[2018]
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.210 Juckes, M., Bane, M., Bulpett, J., Cartmell, K., MacFarlane, M., MacRae, M., Owen, A., Pascoe, C., Townsend, P.,
2018 doi
-
[2019]
Circular economy and electronic waste. Nat. Electron. 2, 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-019-0225-2 15 Balvanera, P., Daw, T.M., Gardner, T.A., Martín-López, B., Norström, A.V., Ifejika Speranza, C., Spierenburg, M., Bennett, E.M., Farfan, M., Hamann, M., Kittinger, J.N....
-
[2020]
A review of data centers as prosumers in district energy systems: Renewable energy integration and waste heat reuse for district heating. Appl. Energy 258, 114109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114109 Irwin, T.,
2019
-
[2021]
Energy efficiency and economy-wide rebound effects: A review of the evidence and its implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 141, 110781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110781 Calverley, D., Anderson, K.,
2021
-
[2022]
How to design a participatory workshop series for UKRI DRI stakeholders to define community-led, key net zero fossil-fuel downshift actions
and risk producing rebound effects without establishing climate-safe energy and resource constraints on a systems level (Brockway et al., 2021). Historically, rebound effects were observed when increased efficiency frees up resources that are then invested into growing the ent...
2021
-
[2023]
Action-based research
which synthesizes a number of toolkit themes (sets of related approaches and tools useful for transition engineers) from the participant recommendations and from results originating from the other sandpit projects. The technical discussion will relate the developed recommendat...
2016
-
[6932]
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33976-5 Sovacool, B.K., Ali, S.H., Bazilian, M., Radley, B., Nemery, B., Okatz, J., Mulvaney, D.,
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.