Key points: Energy-SSH is significantly underfunded: in 2016, only 4% of the EU’s Horizon 2020 energy research programme budget went to SSH partners, with 96% to STEM** partners primarily looking to develop new energy technologies. Whilst SSH disciplines are
Key points: The energy-SSH field is highly active and diverse. However, understandably, those outside the field often immediately think of one or two key roles – e.g. education and awareness-raising to change energy behaviours; or encouraging market uptake of
Key points: Within SSH disciplines, certain disciplines are even more underrepresented than others. In particular, the Humanities (e.g. History, Theology/Ethics) receive much less policy attention and tangible research funding than the Social Sciences (e.g. Economics, Business Management). The wording
Key points: Those evaluating EU funding proposals play a powerful role in determining what constitutes e.g. rigorous, credible, robust, meaningful and even achievable energy research, and therefore in determining which proposals are funded. Energy-SSH researchers need to be more
Key points: Horizon 2020 – and most likely soon for Horizon Europe – proposals include both ‘concept’ and ‘impact’ sections. SSH must feature in the foundational arguments that interdisciplinary energy project proposals are based on, and hence evaluators should
Key points: Energy-SSH expertise requires learnt skills. Training in SSH methods matters if rigorous and robust SSH is to be conducted, which can bring increased policy impact. For example, including a survey in a project requires a Social Science
Energy-SSH is significantly underfunded: in 2016, only 4% of the EU’s Horizon 2020 energy research programme budget went to SSH partners, with 96% to STEM** partners primarily looking to develop new energy technologies.
