Energy, Households, and Regions: Feminist Methodologies for Transdisciplinary Research

The energy field is characterised by an unusual degree of transdisciplinary research. At a moment when transdisciplinary work is valued within certain policy realms for its more apparent relevance and problem‐solving attributes to global challenges, it is therefore helpful to consider frameworks that may facilitate such research. To do so, this paper explores how feminist geographers might help recognise and mitigate against the imbalances of power in relationships between researchers from different disciplines by carefully considering questions of epistemology and methodology in collaborative projects. Attentive to the feminist concepts of “situated knowledge” and “reflexivity”, this paper examines what constitutes acceptably scholarly knowledge on domestic energy. The paper thus proposes a feminist retrofit framework (FRF) with three components: (1) gendered science and knowledge of domestic energy efficiency; (2) everyday knowledge of domestic energy efficiency; and (3) experimental participatory approaches to investigating energy efficiency. By bringing into conversation feminist science studies and feminist post‐structuralist geography, the proposed FRF facilitates rigorous analyses of gender, power and epistemologies in energy research. To illustrate one way to achieve more equitable energy research and interventions, the paper draws on three events in which [self‐]reflexivity contests and extends conventional approaches to conducting a domestic energy project with older low‐income households in a regional centre of New South Wales, Australia.

Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity

To support societal problem solving, transdisciplinary research (TDR) uses knowledge co-production focusing on relevance and validity in a studied case and its particular social–ecological context. In the first instance, the resulting situated knowledge seems to be restricted to these single cases. However, if some of the knowledge generated in TDR could be used in other research projects, this would imply that there is a body of knowledge representing this special type of research. This study used a qualitative approach based on the methodology of grounded theory to empirically examine what knowledge is considered transferable to other cases, if any. 30 leaders of 12 Swiss-based TDR projects in the field of sustainable development were interviewed, representing both academia and practice. The transferable knowledge we found consists of the following: (1) Transdisciplinary principles, (2) transdisciplinary approaches, (3) systematic procedures, (4) product formats, (5) experiential know-how, (6) framings and (7) insights, data and information. The discussion of TDR has predominantly been focusing on transdisciplinary principles and approaches. In order to take knowledge co-production in TDR beyond an unmanageable field of case studies, more efforts in developing and critically discussing transferable knowledge of the other classes are needed, foremost systematic procedures, product formats and framings.

In any society, a wide diversity of actors has relevant knowledge concerning important societal problems. In a knowledge democracy both dominant and non-dominant actors have equal access and ability to put this knowledge forward in the process of solving societal problems. In order to enable these actors to contribute meaningfully to decision-making around public policy and research agendas, we argue that a transdisciplinary research process is needed. In this chapter we critically reflect on the principles, concepts and core methods of transdisciplinary research. We first look at the national historical roots of transdisciplinary research, specifically focussing on two countries – Switzerland and The Netherlands. Next we develop a typology of transdisciplinary research. From the perspective of knowledge democracy, we can distinguish two important dimensions in research approaches: the degree of knowledge input of lay groups that is included in a specific transdisciplinary project and the degree in which non-dominant actors are explicitly involved in the decision-making of the development process of policies or research agendas. This results in two different styles of transdisciplinary research. We discuss the similarities and differences of these different styles and approaches. We close this chapter with a discussion on transdisciplinary research styles in relation to forms of democracy – on the one hand basic and representative democracy and on the other hand deliberative democracy.

Storying energy consumption: Collective video storytelling in energy efficiency social marketing

The “reflexive turn” brought forth a focus on power imbalances in producing knowledge on migration that successfully raised awareness among migration researchers of their possible complicity with oppressive migration regimes. While it raised crucial questions and brought migration research into dialogue with critical traditions such as postcolonial, feminist, and race critical studies, the potential of reflexivity remains far from fully exploited as migration studies continue to closely co-develop with policy agendas. In this Special Issue, we take an inward gaze by exploring how migration knowledge is constructed at the intersection of institutions, theories, and methods. We bring together three facets of migration knowledge production usually explored in isolation. First, we explore the material and structural conditions enabling and constraining migration research, or the political economy of knowledge production. Second, we try to unsettle the ontological, philosophical, and theoretical underpinnings of migration studies by bringing in insights from wider critical social research. Last, we focus on the epistemic practices translating theory into the field, by foregrounding reflexive methodologies that center on the situatedness of knowledge and address the discomfort of researching marginalized and over-researched “subjects” in order to advance a non-harmful and emancipatory migration research. We privilege marginal voices—scholars located in precarious and/or peripheral contexts, calling for research that is aligned with social justice and epistemic plurality struggles.

Global cooperation: A competitive strategy for the pacific basin

This paper scrutinizes the assertion that knowledge gaps concerning health risks from climate change are unjust, and must be addressed, because they hinder evidence-led interventions to protect vulnerable populations. First, we construct a taxonomy of six inter-related forms of invisibility (social marginalization, forced invisibility by migrants, spatial marginalization, neglected diseases, mental health, uneven climatic monitoring and forecasting) which underlie systematic biases in current understanding of these risks in Latin America, and advocate an approach to climate-health research that draws on intersectionality theory to address these inter-relations. We propose that these invisibilities should be understood as outcomes of structural imbalances in power and resources rather than as haphazard blindspots in scientific and state knowledge. Our thesis, drawing on theories of governmentality, is that context-dependent tensions condition whether or not benefits of making vulnerable populations legible to the state outweigh costs. To be seen is to be politically counted and eligible for rights, yet evidence demonstrates the perils of visibility to disempowered people. For example, flood-relief efforts in remote Amazonia expose marginalized urban river-dwellers to the traumatic prospect of forced relocation and social and economic upheaval. Finally, drawing on research on citizenship in post-colonial settings, we conceptualize climate change as an ‘open moment’ of political rupture, and propose strategies of social accountability, empowerment and trans-disciplinary research which encourage the marginalized to reach out for greater power. These achievements could reduce drawbacks of state legibility and facilitate socially-just governmental action on climate change adaptation that promotes health for all.

We approach our task of exploring the papers of this symposium as a strategic intervention in the production of knowledge about food futures at what is a difficult and crucial time. We use a series of questions to interrogate the political and intellectual project of the Food Regimes (FR) literature and its explicit and implicit potential. This framing springs from our engagement with Post Structural Political Economy (Le Heron 2007; Lewis et al. 2008). This has meant we have come to see the FR literature as a composite of political and intellectual projects and therefore not only inherently pedagogic but also likely to help perform or enact different futures. Recent engagement with the concept of biological economies with colleagues from multiple disciplines and research organisations in New Zealand (Campbell et al. 2009), together with our own ongoing work on globalising food chains, has sharpened concern over concepts of engagement, innovative actors, and the creation of multiple rural values. We have thus become interested in the generative potential of categories—that is, the potential of different framings and groups to energise and make possible new research connections and thinking. This paper deploys the ideas of engagement and performance as central concepts through which to interrogate the present collection of FR papers. Our approach follows Kathie Gibson’s key-note address to the meeting of the influential, trans-disciplinary Australasian Agri-food Research Network (AFRN) in November 2006 at the University of Otago, Dunedin. Introducing her recently published A Postcapitalist Politics (Gibson-Graham 2006) to a research collective founded on FR thinking proved a productive provocation. Gibson emphasised the need to understand globalising locals, the values of weak theorisation, and the political potential of understanding communities as bundles of assets that might be configured and mobilised in new ethical and political positions rather than as pre-constituted communities of need. Her intervention added new dynamism to the AFRN, with Gibson-Graham later widely cited by a new, proliferating and energetic generation of agri-fooders at the large 2008 Sydney meeting. This uptake effectively performed Gibson-Graham’s message that theoretical effort is always in-the-making and that ethics and politics often change and can be changed. We suggest that this sort of revitalisation is also apparent in the latest expression of FR as laid out by these contributors. Through this symposium, fresh insights are being made available for a new generation of scholarship. We begin as Gibson-Graham do, with situated knowledge. Our opening heading indicates that knowledge is produced, interpreted and enacted in particular locales, by particular individuals, located in particular trajectories. The 20th anniversary of the claims of FR literature is an opportunity to elaborate the enduring relevance of the notion of situated knowledge in a world where understanding is highly unstable. We must stress that our spatial and political location as Australasian—with all the urgencies and translations that go with this positioning and context—influences our interpretation (without claiming to produce a representative Australasian view). A further R. Le Heron (&) N. Lewis School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, 10 Symonds Street, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: leheron@auckland.ac.nz

While most physical geographers have traditionally focused on natural processes, growing attention is now being paid to how people experience and respond to them. This shift reflects a broader recognition that the natural environment is not only material but also shaped by social, political, and cultural meanings. Accordingly, when people speak about nature, they tend to speak less about physical-geographical factors and more about emotional experiences. Natural hazards, for instance, are often perceived as recurring threats, deeply unsettling events, expressions of political neglect, or simply as part of everyday life. While these narratives are individual in form, they point beyond subjective feelings; they reflect social patterns of meaning and can be analysed as socio-spatial narratives such as inscriptions of (dis)trust or (dis)empowerment. To explore such meanings, qualitative inquiry complements quantitative approaches. However, in my daily work as a lecturer, supervisor, and as advisor in trans- and interdisciplinary research projects, I regularly encounter misconceptions about qualitative inquiry, especially among researchers with a natural science background. This paper clarifies the epistemological foundations, objectives, and potential outcomes of qualitative inquiry in physical geography to dispel common misconceptions. By doing so, I move beyond a narrow understanding of qualitative geography and instead highlight its capacity to critically engage with meaning-making processes, power relations, and situated knowledge in human–environment interactions. Thus, I encourage dialogue and mutual understanding between qualitative and quantitative researchers – particularly in the growing field of transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, where mixed-methods designs are increasingly prevalent.

Energy efficiency measures in residential buildings typically include changes in ventilation and heating systems, and increased thermal insulation of the building envelope. The expected energy efficiency is not always reached, despite large knowledge and professional implementation of each separate measure. There is a lack in understanding of how technical systems interact, and how the occupants are influenced by and in turn influence the systems by their behaviour. A holistic view and a transdisciplinary research approach are needed to understand relevant interactions and propose integrated energy efficiency measures. The aim of this paper is to reveal challenges in transdisciplinary research projects that include real world studies on both humans and technical systems with measurements before and after renovation of multifamily housing. It is based on experiences from the PEIRE-project (People, Environment, Indoor, Renovation, Energy) carried out by a research team with expertise on environmental psychology, human behaviour, interaction design, universal design, building physics, building services, thermal comfort, aerosol technology, exposure assessment, acoustics, daylight, and complex thinking. Differences in theoretical bases and methodology needed to be dealt with. Metatheory building could help with the transition from a multi- to a transdisciplinary understanding.

Local knowledge creation with the use of Industrial Energy Efficiency Networks (IEENs): A Swedish case study

With ever-increasing population and urbanization, it is crucial to decrease energy density in the built environment without sacrificing occupants’ comfort and well-being. This requires consideration of technological developments along with the human factor in order to achieve environmental and social sustainability. Two major contributors to the development of conceptualizations for human-centric technologies are behavior and innovation (B&I) studies. Behavior studies aims to explain individualistic or society-based dynamics of human behavior whereas the innovation studies focuses on social, economic, organizational, and regulatory dimensions and processes of inventive activity. If these studies are incorporated into the hardcore architecture and engineering disciplines with a transdisciplinary approach, the orchestration of occupant behavior and the innovative technologies would be possible, which in turn significantly enhance the comfort and energy efficiency in built environments. This paper aims to provide an overview of interdisciplinary dialog between B&I studies and underlines the role of their collaboration to leverage transdisciplinary research on human-building interaction for energy efficiency. The approach presented here is structured as a conceptual framework and named the ‘socio-technical core’ (STC). STC is to lead to more organic articulation of energy efficiency innovations with real life and pave the way for higher level of acceptance. In order to have a ‘big-picture’ for the well-accepted conceptualizations and the current status of interdisciplinary dialog, we provide a review of (B&I) theories and models along with network analysis of key concepts. Then we investigate the potential directions of future transdisciplinary efforts by discussing the influences of B&I studies to each other for application to energy efficiency studies. In order to put the analysis in a firm background, we provide a case study for thermostat, which can be considered as a product improved with B&I approaches during last decades. We also discuss the benefits of B&I based transdisciplinary research perspective by referring to few examples in literature and the points emerged in this study.

This paper interrogates the concept of transdisciplinarity, both theoretically and practically, from a perspective of early career researchers (ECRs) in transformative ocean governance research. Aiming to advance research methodologies for future complex sustainability challenges, the paper seeks to illuminate some common uncertainties and challenges surrounding transdisciplinarity from a marine science perspective. Following a literature review on transdisciplinary research, workshops, and a series of surveys, we determine that transdisciplinarity appears to be a concept in search of definition, and that there is a need to explore transdisciplinarity specifically from an ocean research perspective. The paper discusses a number of challenges experienced by ECRs in conducting transdisciplinary research and provides recommendations for both ECRs wishing to undertake more equitable transdisciplinary research and for the UN Decade for Ocean Science to support ECRs in this endeavour (Figure 1). Based on our findings, we interrogate the role of non-academic collaborators in transdisciplinary research and argue that future transdisciplinarity will need to address power imbalances in existing research methods to achieve knowledge co-production, as opposed to knowledge integration.

Grounded in the epistemological frameworks of situated knowledge (Haraway 2013. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In: Women, science, and technology , 3rd ed. Routledge) and situated intersectionality (Yuval-Davis 2015. The politics of belonging: intersectionality, citizenship and feminist politics . SAGE Publications, London), this paper examines the promises and frictions of feminist participatory research in urban contexts. Drawing on two empirical projects in Milan and Bologna, it interrogates the gap between feminist epistemological commitments and the structural, temporal, and emotional constraints encountered in fieldwork with marginalized women. While participatory and creative methods offer context-sensitive tools to co-produce spatial knowledge, they often confront institutional timelines, unequal capacities to engage, and asymmetrical power relations. Through an analysis of empirical encounters, the paper explores how care, reflexivity, and relational ethics are operationalized under imperfect conditions, and how tensions around representation, inclusion, and positionality shape the research process. Rather than viewing these contradictions as methodological shortcomings, the paper conceptualizes them as generative sites of situated knowledge in motion : a feminist methodological orientation that embraces contingency, acknowledges ambivalence, and sustains epistemic accountability. By advancing a non-idealized understanding of participation as partial, affective, and contingent, the paper contributes to feminist methodological debates on how urban research can remain ethically attuned, politically engaged, and relationally transformative.