Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35791377›Full record

ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2022

An agenda for future Social Sciences and Humanities research on energy efficiency: 100 priority research questions.

Chris Foulds, Sarah Royston, Thomas Berker, Efi Nakopoulou, Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Rosie Robison, Simone Abram, Branko Ančić, Stathis Arapostathis, Gabriel Badescu and 23 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

33 authors.

Chris FouldsGlobal Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5794-3841
Sarah RoystonGlobal Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Thomas BerkerDepartment of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Centre for Technology and Society, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Efi NakopoulouDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Zareen Pervez BharuchaGlobal Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Rosie RobisonGlobal Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Simone AbramDepartment of Anthropology, and Durham Energy Institute, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Branko AnčićInstitute for Social Research in Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Stathis ArapostathisDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Gabriel BadescuDepartment of Political Sciences, Babeş-Bolyai University of Cluj, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Richard BullSchool of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Jed CohenSalt River Project Integrated System Planning & Support, Tempe, AZ USA.
Tessa DunlopUnit H1 Knowledge for Policy: Concepts and Methods, European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Niall DunphySchool of Engineering and Architecture, and Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Claire DupontDepartment of Public Governance and Management, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Corinna FischerSustainable Products and Material Flows Division, Oeko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, Germany.
Kirsten Gram-HanssenDepartment of the Built Environment, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Catherine GrandclémentResearch Group on Energy, Technology and Society, Électricité de France (EDF), Paris, France.
Eva HeiskanenCentre for Consumer Society Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Nicola LabancaIndependent Researcher, Sesto Calende, Italy.
Maria JeliazkovaDepartment of Public Policies and Social Changes, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Helge JörgensDepartment of Political Science and Public Policy, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Margit KellerInstitute of Social Studies, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Florian KernEcological Economics and Environmental Policy, Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany.
Patrizia LombardiUrban & Regional Inter-university Department, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Ruth MourikDuneWorks, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Michael OrnetzederInstitute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Peter J G PearsonCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Harald RohracherDepartment of Thematic Studies-Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Marlyne SahakianDepartment of Sociology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ramazan SariDepartment of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8276-7648
Karina StandalCICERO-Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway.
Lidija ŽivčičFocus Association for Sustainable Development, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of techno-economic energy policymaking and research have meant evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)-including critical reflections on what changing a society's relation to energy (efficiency) even means-have been underutilised. In particular, (i) the SSH have too often been sidelined and/or narrowly pigeonholed by policymakers, funders, and other decision-makers when driving research agendas, and (ii) the setting of SSH-focused research agendas has not historically embedded inclusive and deliberative processes. The aim of this paper is to address these gaps through the production of a research agenda outlining future SSH research priorities for energy efficiency. A Horizon Scanning exercise was run, which sought to identify 100 priority SSH questions for energy efficiency research. This exercise included 152 researchers with prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency, who together spanned 62 (sub-)disciplines of SSH, 23 countries, and a full range of career stages. The resultant questions were inductively clustered into seven themes as follows: (1) Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency; (2) Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability; (3) Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production; (4) Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency; (5) Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency; (6) Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency; and (7) The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions. Given the consistent centrality of energy efficiency in policy programmes, this paper highlights that well-developed SSH approaches are ready to be mobilised to contribute to the development, and/or to understand the implications, of energy efficiency measures and governance solutions. Implicitly, it also emphasises the heterogeneity of SSH policy evidence that can be produced. The agenda will be of use for both (1) those new to the energy-SSH field (including policyworkers), for learnings on the capabilities and capacities of energy-SSH, and (2) established energy-SSH researchers, for insights on the collectively held futures of energy-SSH research.

Indexed as

Environmental studiesGeographyPolitics and international relationsScience, technology and societySociology

Identifiers

PMID35791377
PMCPMC9245879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.