The meso multiple in energy and climate research: how different social sciences treat the in-betweenness between the micro and macro

The traditional choice of either focussing on individualism (the ‘micro’) or holism (the ‘macro’) when considering social change, is seen as an increasingly unhelpful dualism. As such, the ‘meso’, occupying or connecting the space between the micro and macro, is being increasingly invoked in Social Science research on energy and climate. This paper reviews how different Social Science fields (on energy and climate) theoretically approach the meso. We found four different versions of the meso being enacted. The Micro-leaning and Macro-leaning versions of the meso work in this middle ground, but are pulled towards their ontological roots in the micro or macro respectively. We illustrate these by discussing: how the Pro-environmental Behaviour field's meso work is grounded in individualistic assumptions; and, how the Transitions field's meso work focuses on ideas of system organisation. In contrast, we found our other two versions of the meso to lean much less towards the micro or macro. These are the Implicit-meso and Explicit-meso versions, which sit resolutely in the middle ground, but differ in their presentation. The Implicit-meso is illustrated by the Social Practices field, which uses a unit of analysis that accounts for both micro and macro, but yet is neither micro nor macro; and, the Explicit-meso is illustrated by the Scale and Place field, which has established a consistent theoretical unit that enables a bridge between micro and macro thinking. We call for more transparent and reflexive discussion from researchers on the version(s) of the meso that they are enacting.