Keywords

1 Reflections on Policy and Governance Recommendations

The purpose of this book was to strengthen European energy policy by generating concrete interdisciplinary recommendations for relevant EU energy strategies. As such, the titles of the core chapters (Chapters 2–11) are the policy recommendations generated, with this clearly communicating the key messages being discussed within these chapters. An overview of said recommendations, and how they align (even if lightly at times) to current European Union (EU) and European Commission (EC) agendas, is provided in Table 12.1. The chapters cover a range of policy areas and topics, including retrofit, energy communities, and digital infrastructures, and draw upon various methods to explore the topics covered, including modelling, workshops, and literature reviews. The outputs of these chapters demonstrate the value of bringing together researchers from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), with this being captured in our reflections on the chapter recommendations.

Table 12.1 Chapter policy recommendations and related EU policy instrument(s)
Full size table

From our own experience, we have found that a common misconception is that SSH research is better equipped to research energy demand, whilst STEM approaches align more with questions of energy supply (in spite of SSH literatures dealing with systems of provision, and similarly STEM literatures dealing with demand technologies). This book provides evidence that this misconception is not true and, as such, interdisciplinarity across a range of both supply and demand policy areas can be very productive.

Although the starting point for the interdisciplinary chapters was to develop policy recommendations for the EU, the implementation of many of the recommendations presented requires the involvement of different actors at different scales. This reflects the different foci of the chapters, looking at both energy demand and supply, as well as some system-level topics. Across the chapters reference is made to the role of Member States, energy sector organisations, individual households, amongst others, in achieving the policy recommendations. As such, some of the EU policy recommendations presented require coordination across multiple scales and governance structures.

Many chapters focus on policymaking processes and the structural landscapes in which the policy is eventually to be implemented. Chapters also considered how wider governance initiatives may complement existing policy initiatives. As such, there was implicit interest in going beyond policy targets or intended outcomes, into, for example, how policymaking gets done, by whom, and within what real-world contexts. This also connects to the view that policymaking is a process co-owned by multiple actors, requiring policy-supporting tools and interaction between policymakers, researchers, professional communities, citizens and other stakeholders.

Furthermore, the chapters’ recommendations are situated within a broader set of negotiation processes that exist at research-policy interfaces. Indeed, there is an ongoing balancing act, whereby on the one side: policymakers would ideally like concrete recommendations, which fit within their paradigm and thus their existing policy commitments and delivery mechanisms, and on the other side, researchers are keen to epistemically experiment and push the boundaries of what is possible (e.g. in terms of policy evidence) through innovative interdisciplinary collaborations, but are wary of their research being instrumentalised. The challenge then is how these agendas align.

2 Reflections on Innovation in Interdisciplinary Collaborations

It is clear that this book represents a significant interdisciplinary undertaking. Indeed, of the 57 authors contributing to the policy recommendation chapters (Chapters 2–11), 29 classified themselves as SSH researchers and 28 as STEM. SSH disciplines ranged, for example, from Environmental Social Science and Sociology to Marketing and Business Management; with STEM disciplines ranging from Computer Science and Physics to various Engineering and Geoscience disciplines.

However, disciplines are fluid and their boundaries are porous; they are not rigid institutional entities (Jacobs, 2013). Thus, it quickly became apparent to us that asking the chapter teams for disciplinary self-classifications was unlikely to have been straightforward for them. For example, we have observed how many authors: have individual track records straddling both STEM and SSH disciplines; are based in very applied policy or practice settings, where disciplinary identities matter much less; and/or, assign themselves to relatively new hybrid interdisciplines, such as Gender Studies or Urban Studies. In these ways, whilst disciplines are “useful proxies for different ways of generating, interpreting and applying knowledges, we should not obsess about” (Silvast & Foulds, 2022, p. 8) counting disciplines or attempting to draw precise disciplinary boundaries. Instead, we argue for more reflection upon the actual interdisciplinary processes and experiences in play.

The enactment of interdisciplinarity usually hinges on what is regarded to be epistemically palatable amongst the group of collaborators (Silvast & Foulds, 2022). It is interesting then to observe the positions that STEM and SSH perspectives took during the collaboration. Herein, STEM contributions would usually set the tone for what was technically possible in the future or what the current starting arrangements were. For example, Calver et al. (Chapter 5) and Macrorie et al. (Chapter 6) used STEM to describe technical understandings of the energy system and construction industry, respectively. Whereas, SSH contributions would often be more exploratory, using SSH researcher skills, such as problematisation, critique, empathy, reflexivity, etc., to orient interdisciplinary discussions towards societal needs. SSH would therefore commonly be used to open up the traditional STEM positions. For example, Rohse et al. (Chapter 3) used SSH insights to unpack different ways of thinking about engagement in geothermal projects.

Refreshingly, we are pleased to observe that, of our 10 chapters, seven were led by SSH researchers. This is a welcome change, given the traditional dominance of STEM in SSH-STEM interdisciplinarity (Kropp, 2021). We would speculate that this pushback against the normal scientific hierarchy of knowledge-making may be behind four trends we observed across the chapters: (1) STEM sometimes took a more subordinate role, (2) alternative offerings of SSH were made clearer (e.g. criticality, reflexivity), (3) we enjoyed some constructive resistance and critique from the teams towards the normative ambitions of the book project, and (4) the conclusions and recommendations were overall slightly more tentative (e.g. less definitive, replicable and more contextually-grounded).

3 Closing Remarks: Interdisciplinarity for Strengthening Energy Policy and Governance

The process of developing this book—from launching the initial call, to working with the interdisciplinary chapter teams, to engaging with Foreword and Afterword authors—has highlighted the growing interest from researchers, policymakers, and others, in collaborative SSH-STEM research. It has also shown the need for better mechanisms to facilitate the collaboration of SSH and STEM disciplines to evaluate, and ultimately strengthen, European energy policy and governance. The combination of different perspectives and methodologies across the chapters has supported critical engagement with current EU energy ambitions and policies, and has identified ways in which they can be enhanced, which could not be achieved if remaining in disciplinary silos.

Although the primary aim of this book project was to produce concrete EU energy policy recommendations through interdisciplinary collaborations, a secondary ambition was to showcase the value and opportunities of interdisciplinarity and inspire others to undertake their own interdisciplinary activities. Whilst we appreciate that this book does not capture the challenges, and potentially difficult conversations, of undertaking interdisciplinary work, it does demonstrate how the combination of different perspectives can develop insights that address energy challenges. As such, we encourage others to undertake more interdisciplinary activities—whether that be policymakers engaging with different communities and perspectives to inform their activities; SSH researchers reaching out to their STEM colleagues down the corridor, and vice versa; or reaching out to someone new to provide support as you expand the remit of your work. After all, by moving beyond disciplinary silos, engaging with different perspectives, and adopting different methods, it helps stimulate innovative approaches and alternative ways of thinking, which are critical for addressing the complex sustainability and energy transition challenges we face.