This article was downloaded by: [USC University of Southern California]On: 09 November 2014, At: 22:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20
Energy and buildings research: challenges from thenew production of knowledgeThomas Berker a b & Krishna Bharathi a ba Centre for Technology and Society, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture ,Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) , NO-7491 , Trondheim , Norwayb The Norwegian Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, Faculty of Architecture andFine Art , Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) , NO-7491 , Trondheim ,Norway E-mail:Published online: 09 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Thomas Berker & Krishna Bharathi (2012) Energy and buildings research: challenges from the newproduction of knowledge, Building Research & Information, 40:4, 473-480, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2012.690954
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690954
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RESEARCH PAPER
Energyand buildings research: challengesfrom thenewproduction of knowledge
Thomas Berker1,2 and Krishna Bharathi1,2
1Centre forTechnology andSociety,Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture,NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology (NTNU),NO-7491Trondheim,Norway
E-mail: [email protected]
2TheNorwegianResearchCentre on Zero Emission Buildings,Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art,NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology (NTNU),NO-7491Trondheim,Norway
E-mail: [email protected]
The current state and future challenges of energy and buildings research are explored from the perspective of the social
study of science. Major trends in knowledge production are considered for practices within current energy and buildings
research. New forms of knowledge production hold the potential to provide clearer strategies to overcome barriers
between researchers and practitioners. These are investigated through an explorative survey of researchers based on
their own accounts of energy and buildings research, their expectations of future challenges, and their perceptions of
‘good’ science. Two sets of challenges from knowledge production arise for building energy research. First, with an
increasing focus on environmental and other impacts of the research, the framing and definition of these extra-
scientific factors will become a significant challenge for researchers. Second, as buildings become simultaneously more
complex and more connected, the already existing need for the integration of different kinds of expertise will increase
further.
Keywords: buildings, energy, interdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge production, research agenda, science,
sustainability
L’etat actuel et les defis futurs de la recherche en matiere d’energie et de batiments sont examines du point de vue de
l’etude sociale des sciences. Les principales tendances de la production de savoir sont envisagees sous l’angle des
pratiques existant dans les recherches actuelles sur l’energie et les batiments. De nouvelles formes de production de
savoir offrent la possibilite de fournir des strategies plus claires pour surmonter les barrieres entre chercheurs et
praticiens. Celles-ci sont etudiees au moyen d’une enquete exploratoire conduite aupres des chercheurs, basee sur
leurs propres recits des recherches menees sur l’energie et les batiments, sur les defis futurs qu’ils prevoient, et sur
leurs perceptions de la « bonne » science. Deux series de defis poses par la production de savoir decoulent des
recherches sur l’energie dans le batiment. Tout d’abord, en mettant davantage l’accent sur les incidences
environnementales et autres de la recherche, l’encadrement et la definition de ces facteurs extra-scientifiques
deviendront un defi considerable pour les chercheurs. Deuxiemement, au fur et a mesure que les batiments gagnent
simultanement en complexite et en connectivite, le besoin deja existant d’integrer differents types de competences
augmentera encore.
Mots cles: batiments, energie, collaboration interdisciplinaire, production de savoir, programme de recherche, science,
durabilite
IntroductionThe future of energy and buildings research is inextric-ably linked to the extended view of the built
environment, as well as to research and those whoconduct it. Along with the observation that topics ofinvestigative focus and their analytic criteria have
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2012) 40(4), 473–480
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2012 Taylor & Francishttp: ⁄ ⁄www.tandfonline.com ⁄journals
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690954
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
changed considerably over time, it cannot be assumedthat what researchers think of as interesting challengestoday will yield conclusions that are considered rel-evant tomorrow. Therefore, the current changes inthe relation between research and society need to beexplored in the field of energy and building research.A social study of science is useful to provide thiswider context.
The motivating rationale behind this paper wasinitially generated from observations made in 2003by one of the authors who interviewed 14 architectsand engineers working in a large Norwegian interdisci-plinary building and energy research project calledSmartBuild.1 Dubbed a ‘user-oriented’ project aimingat the development of energy-efficient buildings, thisproject explicitly presented itself as an interdisciplinarycrossover between application and basic research.2
Not surprisingly, a topic raised by every intervieweewas the paramount importance of end-users and inter-disciplinary collaboration for their research. However,the analysis of the interviews revealed that for half ofthe interviewees, interdisciplinary work was actuallya way of not dealing with end-users’ demands. Thesedemands, they argued, were the problem of theirrespective colleagues from other disciplines whowork with users. This was in stark contrast to theother half of the interviewees who eloquently describedhow they genuinely enjoyed professional discussionsbetween disciplines, in addition to engaging issuesinvolving end-users. These researchers, who promotedholistic views on building performance, also worked todevelop additional working methods based on tightinterdisciplinary collaboration, such as in advancedintegrated facades, coordinated design and buildingprocesses (cf. Reed and Gordon, 2000).
Thus, despite their opposing claims, the first groupremained firmly rooted in a traditional scientificmindset, based on a clear vision of research that doesnot engage with its users at all. However, the secondgroup represented something new, which accordingto leading observers of science and technology is inthe process of becoming the pervasive mode of knowl-edge production. In the aftermath of Gibbons et al.’sThe New Production of Knowledge (1994), the ideahas been accepted that traditional research institutionsfind themselves in an ever-more-complex hetero-geneous landscape of knowledge producers. Scholarsof the relationship between science and society argueunanimously that knowledge producers increasinglyneed to engage in context and problem-driven researchconducted in interdisciplinary teams. This is necessaryto adequately address the complexity involved in issuesrelated to the built environment.
Recognizing that the future of energy and buildingsresearch strongly relates to the overall developmentof research in society forms the basis for the work
presented here. In addition to a discussion of recenttheorizing about new roles of science in society, theself-reported views of active energy and buildingsresearchers on the current state and future challengesof their work was gathered to investigate the diver-gence between traditional research approaches andnew forms of knowledge production within energyand buildings research.
The new production of knowledgeTraditionally, society is seen as an important contextof science but not as part of its content. In the historyof science such an understanding of scientific auton-omy is usually connected with the normative structureof science described by the sociologist of scienceRobert K. Merton (1942/1973). His four principles,known as CUDOS norms (Communalism of researchfindings, Universal validity of findings, Disinterested-ness, and Organised Scepticism), draw a stronglyguarded line between universal science and partialinterests of parties that populate society. Supportedby post-Second World War science and technologypolicy, these norms created a fundamental divisionbetween ‘basic’ science which is located ‘outside’ ofsociety and ‘applied’ science which operates withinsociety. So called ‘science push’ models of technologi-cal innovation, often traced back to Vannevar Bush’sScience: The Endless Frontier (1945), suggest that uni-versal principles discovered by science are sub-sequently applied to create the new technologies thatsociety may or may not need.
Since the 1960s these ideals and the correspondingpractices of science, as well as engineering and archi-tecture, have increasingly come under attack fromvarious sides. Often this led to a romantic defence ofpre-industrial forms of indigenous cultures, whilemodern technologies, and frequently, their protago-nists and principles were blamed for the unintendedconsequences of modernization (Beck et al., 1994).These criticisms were aimed primarily at those seenas responsible for the kind of technocratic large scaleplanning that characterized the societies involved inthe Second World War and that was continued in the1950s and 1960s. A corresponding critique of technol-ogy policy for a linear understanding of development(e.g. the ‘science push’ model) called for a democratiza-tion of science, technology and planning. With socialscientists and anthropologists entering the secludedlaboratories of modern science (Latour and Woolgar,1986)3 and producing outsider accounts of scientificresearch as it was happening, a less normative andmore descriptive appraisal of scientific practice wasestablished. These studies described in great detailhow science was more closely bound to its societal con-texts than Merton’s norms would allow. The ensuingconflicts were triggered by the counterattack of the
Berker andBharathi
474
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
promoters of Mertonian science. These so-called‘science wars’ gained intensity from a conflation ofthe older strand of modernization critique with thenewer efforts of describing scientific practices, a con-fusion which occurred on both sides of the confronta-tion. These conflicts have long since subsided andtoday hardly anyone within social studies of scienceasks whether Mertonian norms should be valid ornot. Instead, researchers explore how these norms arereinforced and which competing norms exist. Thefact that science is increasingly subject to extra-scienti-fic demands is not any longer controversial. Addition-ally, as Jacob (2005) notes, there is equally littledoubt today that science is a distinct activity, whichcannot be reduced to societal factors.
A common contemporary way of analysing the linksbetween science and society distinguishes differentkinds of science with varied degrees of societal involve-ment. In an early form, the theory of finalization(Weingart, 1997) claims that mature branches ofscience are less autonomous and more directed bynon-scientific contexts of application. More influentialin current discussions, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993)acknowledge the advent of a special kind of science,which they called post-normal science. They claimedthat under certain conditions, characterized by highdecision stakes (i.e. high risk and urgency) and highuncertainty, a new kind of science that goes beyondprofessional consultancy and applied science hasevolved. Specifically, this is a science that manages to‘make ignorance usable’. What they called ‘post-normal’ science relies on an extended peer community,which includes those affected or with special knowl-edge about the problem. Using the example ofclimate change induced sea-level rise, they claimedthat this also changes the role of scientific values:
Public agreement and participation, derivingessentially from value commitments, will be deci-sive for the assessment of risks and the setting ofpolicy. Thus the traditional scientific inputs havebecome ‘soft’ in the context of the ‘hard’ valuecommitments that will determine the success ofpolicies for mitigating the effects of a possiblesea-level rise. (p. 195)
This description of new forms of evaluating scientificoutcomes is similar to what Gibbons et al. (1994)called ‘social robustness’ as a dominant quality cri-terion within ‘the new production of knowledge’.According to their diagnosis the whole of knowledgeproduction has entered into ‘a new mode’ and notonly in specific research areas. Judged by the numberof related publications, their ‘mode 2’ description isthe most influential and broadest effort to describecurrent transformations of knowledge production todate (Hessels and van Lente, 2008, p. 748). In additionto society and its values having a say in deciding what
is valid knowledge, mode 2 theoreticians state thatmeaningful information is increasingly produced ‘inthe context of its application’, where the context ofscientific production ‘talks back’, and no longer pas-sively receives the outcomes of science, but ratheractively intervenes in its production. Reacting to feed-back on their first book (Gibbons et al., 1994), theauthors contended that there may very well be differentdegrees of contextualization of science (weak, strongand middle range). But the authors still claimed thatall forms of knowledge production are movingtowards a new, less secluded mode (Nowotny et al.,2003). Consequentially, the authors mobilized abroad range of observations that knowledge pro-duction is becoming increasingly problem orientated,more interdisciplinary, flexible, reflexive anddynamic, user oriented, more distributed in inter-national networks, and less firmly institutionalized.
The central conceptual criticisms of this work focus onthe dualism created when a seemingly coherent newmode is contrasted with an older one (i.e. mode-2versus mode-1). This narrow binary representationhas been accused of doing injustice to actual practices(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 116) and creat-ing an unnecessary lock-in of how knowledge is pro-duced, instead of engaging a broader variety ofgenerative methods (Rip, 2000). However, despitethese criticisms, Hessels and van Lente (2008)showed that a large majority of publications discussingmode-2 do so in affirmative ways.
Building research and professional practiceIn their current forms, the engineering and architec-tural professions have had a relatively short historyof establishing boundaries around their specific exper-tise. The concept of the ‘architect as master builder’ orthe ‘hero engineer’ no longer exists. This is attributedto the evolution of structure and architecture – botheconomically and conceptually into literally hundredsof specialities and sub-specialities (Kieran and Timber-lake, 2004, p. 29). However, both the engineering andarchitectural professions recognize that narrowspecialization is problematic in developing robustsolutions for the built environment and resist thiscategorization for education and practice. Layton(1971), one of the pioneers of engineering studies andan engineer himself, was one of the first scholars whosought to purge the field from the reputation of being‘just’ application (e.g. of physics) by stressing its uni-versal aspects. In the same way, architects haveasserted to define their specific expertise distinguishingtheir knowledge from the provision of basic shelter.Many, like architect Mario Botta for example, referto ‘the much profounder spiritual need to shape ourhabitat’ and the ‘aesthetic, emotional and symbolicmeanings’ of architecture (Botta, 1997, p. 10).
Challenges from the new production of knowledge
475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
The tension between practical divisions of labour andholistic views also characterizes debates around theyear 1900 on the newly established early Western poly-technic education system, where the integrated trainingof architects with engineers was a much discussed topicand led to differing outcomes on the way the pro-fessions organize (Stevens, 1998, pp. 168–187).4
Despite the longstanding ‘sibling rivalry’ between archi-tects and engineers (Saint, 2007), the current renewedinterest in sustainable performance criteria, holisticbuilding design and construction methods is providingnew opportunities to negotiate professional identitiesin practice (Abel, 2004; Hardy, 2008; Kieran and Tim-berlake, 2004; Larsen and Tyas, 2003; Lepik, 2010). Itcould be argued that architects known for groundbreak-ing projects can do so because of access to the best avail-able engineering collaborators, as well as to greaterfinancial resources or cost per square metre for con-struction and design budgets. Inversely, it could alsobe claimed that in projects with smaller budgets andambitions, the specialized roles of team membersdominate, reinforcing professional boundary con-ditions, where architects address non-technical issuesand engineers address technical ones. This is obviouslynot true in every case, although it is not to say that finan-cial resources and accepted professional norms do notaffect outcomes.
The fact that architects and engineers collaborate reg-ularly in professional practice is not a surprise.However, most practitioners would also acknowledgethat there are significant limits to what interdisciplin-ary collaborations entail in the field and to whatdegree research actively influences the practice. It isoften because of the very site specificity of sustainabledesign that innovative strategies are difficult toimplement. Whether this is due to lack of equitably dis-tributed liability amongst researchers and prac-titioners, the additional time needed for innovation indesign and construction, mistrust in the use of rela-tively young technologies, difficulty securing financinga long chain of actors (supply and operation), or acombination of these factors, the presence of thesedeterrents is relatively consistent in the process ofmost sustainable development efforts. This dividebetween academic research and the practice in thefield of architecture is arguably greater than in theengineering fields, since the development of practicalarchitectural knowledge does not map well to histori-cally Western deductive methods of abstract knowl-edge formation. Nor is it aided by a lack of collected,detailed studies and longitudinal studies. However,the pressing necessity to develop coordinated imple-mentable sustainable strategies for the built environ-ment presents itself to be a great opportunity toencourage a closer relationship between research andpractice. As the practice becomes more aware of theeconomic and practical realities of what green
construction entails, and the research fields movetoward more heterogeneous and collaborativemethods, new modes of energy and buildings researchappear to be on the cusp of widespread reach.
A newmode of building and energyresearch?According to the mode-2 hypothesis, disciplinary div-isions, as well as boundaries between applied scienceand basic science, systematically blur. The questionnow is how well energy and buildings research andresearchers are prepared to meet these challenges.Based on the previous argumentation, it is plausiblethat either energy and buildings researchers continueto guard their specific expertise, possibly intensifyingtheir efforts when their knowledge is devalued infavour of alternative skills more in demand withininterdisciplinary work. Or alternatively, researchersconnect to traditions and trends within their disci-plines, which are open for integrated and user-orientedapproaches. In the latter case, it would be interesting toascertain whether building and energy research haslessons to offer other disciplines, which according tomode-2 research are undergoing similar developments.
To explore whether and to which degree building andenergy researchers embrace mode-2 knowledge pro-duction, a questionnaire focusing on these issues wasdistributed in mid-2011 among active European con-tributors to the field. If the mode-2 hypothesis iscorrect, then discrete disciplines are losing importance.Therefore, in the experiment design, the presupposedunderlying population of the study was intentionallyweakly defined as self-assigned ‘energy and buildingsresearcher’. Since little is known about the size fromwhich the sample is drawn, the following explorationcannot be statistically representative. Still, as will beshown in the following results section, respondentspresent a consistently coherent image of the currentstate of building and energy research in relation tothe mode-2 hypothesis.
In June 2011, 150 targeted participants were contactedvia e-mail to complete an online questionnaire consist-ing of 28 questions. The participants’ addresses wereselected according to two criteria: Roughly one-thirdof the addresses were institutional (such as ‘info@. . .’)with the expectation that the respective institutionalcontacts would use their local knowledge to distributethe e-mail to appropriate individuals. The other two-thirds of the addresses consisted of persons activelycontributing to the field, among them the Northernand Central European contributors to the five lastvolumes of the academic journals Building Research& Information and Energy and Buildings. In addition,respondents were encouraged to forward the question-naire to people they knew contributed to the field.
Berker andBharathi
476
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
ResultsForty-two responses to the questionnaires werereceived. Of these responses only 24 have answeredmore than 25% of the questions and were subsequentlyincluded in the analysis. Two comments given byrespondents suggest that the relatively high dropoutrate was related to the unqualified use of the word‘institution’ in one of the first questions which gaverespondents unclear signals about the desired targetgroup of the survey.
The combined distribution method resulted in a sampleconsisting of respondents mainly employed at univer-sities (82%). Almost 40% of the respondents weretrained as architects and 62% were either additionallyor exclusively trained as engineers. In their day-to-daywork they did research (89%), teaching (56%) and con-sultancy (29%).5 These numbers show that respondentswere primarily university researchers who are often alsoengaged in teaching and – to a lesser degree – also serveas consultants. Although the selection has introduced abias towards traditional university research, this is notconsidered problematic in the context of the presentstudy. If the post-Mertonian norms of post-normalscience and mode-2 knowledge production havearrived at universities (that had formerly been oncethe main protagonists of Mertonian science), then itcan be assumed that a significant change has occurred.However, it is important to bear in mind that thefocus of the survey is mainly about university
researchers when interpreting the results. Their insti-tutional affiliation clearly shapes their perspective ofthe field.
State of the art in energyand buildings researchWhen asked for the current state of energy and build-ings research, the strongest support was for the descrip-tion ‘applied research’ along with the statement thatthe work is ‘dealing with climate change’ (Figure 1).While this sends a clear message pointing in the direc-tion of post-normal science and mode-2 research, therewere opposing findings as well. Descriptions such as‘dealing with high financial risks’ and ‘flexible’ hadthe lowest acceptance. Thus, high risk, the defining cri-terion of post-normal science, at least in its monetaryform was not seen as important for energy and build-ings research. Even though roughly one-third of therespondents said that they were (at least sometimes)serving as consultants, they seemed little involved inactivities afflicted with financial risk.
In the nextquestion the descriptionswere turned intonor-mative statements, exchanging ‘currently is’ with ‘shouldbe’ (Figure 2). Here ‘interdisciplinary research’ scoredhighest. The next highest ranking values were assignedto ‘international networking’, ‘dealing with climatechange’, ‘applied research’ and reflection on methods.The only result not fitting this list of characteristicsvalued high in mode-2 research was that being based on
Figure1 ‘In your opinion, building energy research currently is . . .’: statements scoring highest and lowest (means are on a scale from1 to5,N ¼ 24)
Challenges from the new production of knowledge
477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
‘scientific principles’ actually ranked second highest. Thisis consistent with the general scepticism of involvingresearch in ‘financial risk’ or dependence on industrysupport, which are among the lowest ranked items.
Comparing the respondents’ description of the currentstate of energy and buildings research and their norma-tive prescriptions, three areas where the respondentswere particularly unsatisfied with the current state ofaffairs were found. These topics where the respondentsshowed the largest discrepancy between the twoqueries was with regard to the topics of ‘reflecting onits methods’, the awareness of ‘end-users’ demandsand wishes’ and involvement in ‘societal discussions.’Thus, the respondents saw the largest need toaugment practices in areas central to mode-2 research:reflexivity, user-orientation and societal involvement.
Quality criteriaIn the next two questions respondents were asked abouthow the recognition of quality in building energyresearch is currently determined and how it should bedetermined (Figure 3). Traditional quality criteriasuch as ‘scientific quality’ and ‘peer review’ scoredhigh in the description of the status quo and evenhigher in the responses to what should be the case.However, among the four highest ranking criteria,non-traditional qualities like ‘relevance for environ-mental problems’ and ‘the effects of research’ werealso represented. At the other end of the scale, ‘aes-thetics’ scored very low both as current and desirablecriterion. In the normative dimension it was only
surpassed by ‘lobby interests’, which scored intermedi-ately in the respondents’ description of the current state.
Interdisciplinary collaborationThe high valuation of interdisciplinary collaboration,apparent in the previous sections, is reflected in therespondents’ actual research efforts. All but onerespondent said that they have been involved in inter-disciplinary work with collaborators from an averageof five different disciplines. The topics for this collabor-ation were extremely diverse. Indoor environmentalquality (IEQ) was the only one, which was mentionedmore than once (four times). In two cases the colla-borative goal was an evaluation of different aspectsof existing buildings.
The futureAn open-ended question was included addressing therespondents’ expectations of focus areas withinenergy and buildings research in the immediate future(e.g. until 2020) and the long-term (e.g. 2020–2050).The primary combination of short- and long-term pre-dictions anticipated the perfection of passive measuresin the short-term and the development of activesystems including renewable energy production in thelong-term. A second group suggested varied scalarforms of integration between disciplines, betweensystems infrastructure (e.g. integration of water recy-cling, transport and telecommunication). Respondentspredominantly shared the long-term expectation thatenergy and buildings research would shift focus from
Figure2 ‘In your opinion, building energy research should be . . .’: statements scoring highest and lowest (meansare on a scale from1to 5)
Berker andBharathi
478
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
the building level to district, urban, regional, nationalor even European levels. Refurbishment was equallyoften mentioned as a short- and long-term focus area.
Discussion: two sets of challengesBased on the empirical exploration presented in theprevious section and the discussion of energy andbuildings research in the context of ‘the new pro-duction of knowledge’, two separate sets of futurechallenges are identified.
The first one is related to the researchers’ self-description.Their portrayal of energy and buildings research is anapplied science which deals with climate change andthat should be interdisciplinary and internationally net-worked. This complies with basic descriptions of thenew production of knowledge which was put forward asthe mode-2 hypothesis. However, there are also areaswhere the respondents are more in line with traditionalMertonian CUDOS norms than with mode-2 or anyother assumption about a new production of knowledge.The respondents are overall positive towards traditionalquality criteria for good science such as ‘scientific prin-ciples’ and ‘peer review’. Moreover, they unanimouslyreject financial dependence on the building industry.These statements exist alongside a clear commitment toquality criteria controlled by extra-scientific parties, suchas users and the environmental impacts of the research.However, it also suggests that the university researchersstudied here are, in principle, ready to sacrifice scientificindependence – but only to certain parties. Dividing notonly between science and non-science (a necessity when
following Mertonian norms), there is also a further setof distinctions being introduced between different non-scientific parties (e.g. industry versus users; financialversus environmental benefit). This poses new challengesto research: who is the ‘user’ of the research who isallowed to set the agenda (Shove and Rip, 2000)? Andwho is speaking legitimately for the environment?
A second set of future challenges for energy and build-ings research stems from the respondents’ own expec-tations of future research topics. Subjects wererelated to the integration of greater functionality intoindividual buildings, greater integration and infra-structure coordination. With buildings simultaneouslygaining more internal complexity and greater externalinfrastructural connectivity, the need for integration ofdifferent kinds of expertise will only increase. In thisrespect the respondents’ call for methodological reflec-tion is an adequate answer to the challenges awaitingenergy and buildings research.
ConclusionsThis article started with the observation of two differentways of conducting user-oriented and interdisciplinaryenergy and building research. If the mode-2 hypothesisdoes in fact describe a secular trend within knowledgeproduction, then the group of researchers that whole-heartedly engaged with end users’ practices and other dis-ciplines’ expertise holds the key to the future.
While the actual outcome is uncertain, it is clear that thetwo sets of challenges for building energy research
Figure3 ‘Recognition of quality in building energy research should be determined by . . .’: lowest andhighest acceptance (means are on ascale from1 to 5;N ¼ 22 except where indicated otherwise)
Challenges from the new production of knowledge
479
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
articulated in the above discussion will not go awaysoon. How the relationships between research andvarious extra-scientific factors (e.g. users, industry andenvironment) are defined will profoundly influence thedirection of energy and buildings research in the nextdecade and far beyond. Similarly, a central factorshaping the field will be how and under whose leadwill energy and buildings research achieve a tighter inte-gration between different kinds of expertise.
The transition from one mode of knowledge productionto another is not effortless. Instead, it is marked by fric-tions and hybrid forms – this is also acknowledged bythe original authors of the mode-2 hypothesis. Conflictsarise above all when expertise is devalued and existinghierarchies are challenged. For protagonists of mode-1knowledge production, the active engagement withextra-scientific parties, such as end-users, as well astight interdisciplinary integration is difficult or mayeven prove to be impossible. However, evidence pre-sented in this paper suggests that many buildingenergy researchers are well prepared to participate inthis ‘new production of knowledge’. Their effortsdraw on a broad range of disciplines which are drivenby a desire to contribute to the design and implemen-tation of ‘good’ buildings, and a willingness to addresscontextual factors. The further development of interdis-ciplinary and context-sensitive approaches (includingthe management of contextual factors) is one of themost important challenges energy and buildingsresearch faces in the next decade and beyond. Strongengagement with this position has significant potentialto generate a wide array of research initiatives outsidethe building sector.
AcknowledgementThis work was supported by the Norwegian ResearchCentre on Zero Emission Buildings.
ReferencesAbel, C. (2004) Architecture, Technology and Process, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Moderniz-
ation: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the ModernSocial Order, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Berker, T. (2004) Smart Machines and Dubious Delegates: TheRepresentation of User Agency in the Design of Energy Effi-cient Buildings, Senter for teknologi og samfunn, Norgesteknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim.
Berre, N. (2001) Fysiske idealer i norsk arkitektutdanning 1945–1970, NTNU, Trondheim, PhD thesis.
Botta, M. (1997) The Ethics of Building, Birkhauser, Basel.Bush, V. (1945/2001) Science: The Endless Frontier, [1945].
ACLS History E-Book Project.Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) The dynamics of inno-
vation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helixof university–industry–government relations. ResearchPolicy, 29(2), 109–123.
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Limoges, C., Trow, M., Schwartzman,S. and Scott, P. (1994)The NewProduction ofKnowledge:TheDynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies,Sage, London.
Hardy, S. (2008) Environmental Tectonics: Forming ClimaticChange, Architectural Association, London.
Hessels, L.K. and van Lente, H. (2008) Re-thinking new knowl-edge production: a literature review and a research agenda.Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.
Jacob, M. (2005) Boundary work in contemporary science policy:a review. Prometheus, 23(2), 195–207.
Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J. (2004) Refabricating Architecture:How Manufacturing Methodologies are Poised to Trans-form Building Construction, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Larsen, O.P. and Tyas, A. (2003) Conceptual Structural Design:Bridging the Gap between Architects and Engineers,Thomas Telford, London.
Latour, B. (1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology, HarvardUniversity Press, Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Con-struction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press, Prin-ceton, NJ.
Layton, E.T. (1971) Mirror image twins: the communities ofscience and technology in 19th-century America. Technol-ogy and Culture, 12, 562–580.
Lepik, A. (2010) Small Scale, Big Change: New Architectures ofSocial Engagement, Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY.
Merton, R. (1942/1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical andEmpirical Investigations,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago, IL.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003) ‘Mode 2’ revisited:the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.
Reed, W.G. and Gordon, E.B. (2000) Integrated design and build-ing process: what research and methodologies are needed?Building Research & Information, 28(5–6), 325–337.
Rip, A. (2000)Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowledgeproduction, in M. Jacob and T. Hellstrom (eds): The Future ofKnowledge Production in the Academy, Society for Researchinto Higher Education & Open University Press, pp. 28–39.
Saint, A. (2007) Architect and Engineer: A Study in SiblingRivalry, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Shove, E. and Rip, A. (2000) Users and unicorns: a discussion ofmythical beasts in interactive science. Science and PublicPolicy, 27(3), 175–182.
Stevens, G. (1998) The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations ofArchitectural Distinction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Weingart, P. (1997) From ‘Finalization’ to ‘Mode 2’: old wine innew bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.
Yaneva, A. (2009) The Making of a Building: A PragmatistApproach to Architecture, Peter Lang, Oxford.
Endnotes1The project was funded 2002–2008 by the Research Council ofNorway. The interviewees were participants in the researchproject and working as researchers at the two main project part-ners NTNU and Sintef. For more information about how bothgroups were distinguished and other findings of the interviews,see Berker (2004).
2For the project’s self-description, see http://www.ntnu.edu/energy/smartbuild/.
3For ethnographies engaging with engineering and architecturalpractice, see Latour (1996) and Yaneva (2009) respectively.
4For an in-depth account of the Norwegian side of the story, seeBerre (2001).
5Multiple responses were possible, therefore the categories add upto more than 100%.
Berker andBharathi
480
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
USC
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a] a
t 22:
42 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Recommended
