6

Reflections from Day One

An interactive discussion session was moderated by David Victor, Professor of Innovation and Public Policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California, San Diego. The expressed goals were to: a) identify the highest priority topics from the panels; b) discuss actions that would enhance engagement with the social sciences; and c) address the largest gaps between current social science activities and the needs of the field.

FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS FOR INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: INSIGHTS FROM PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Beginning with a review of the four high-priority areas he heard mentioned throughout the panels (not in order of importance), Victor emphasized their interrelated nature. The first area he discussed involved siting issues—specifically how community engagement can affect future patterns of opposition and support. Key questions in this area, he noted, include understanding how people form supporting or opposing attitudes towards unfamiliar technologies and infrastructure; explaining why some plans are seen as more credible than others, as credibility is an important factor in explaining why some long-term and capital-intensive projects advance while others falter; and drawing insights from experiences in other countries. He noted that additional questions involve the special siting issues involved when numerous complex components need to be constructed in parallel (e.g., with hubs) and how these complex projects can be initiated.

For Victor, labor discussions raised many issues that are difficult to parse due to the inherent complexity of the market and challenges in both measuring labor impacts and assigning them to particular causes. He suggested that researchers could delve into the dynamic effects of technological change on labor—a longstanding question in labor economics—with a particular focus on how technological changes inherent to industrial decarbonization affect the most vulnerable workers, their families, and communities. He noted that literature on the impacts of existing programs is scattered, thin, and inconclusive—and that overcoming this limitation could increase the effectiveness of future public policy programs. He further pointed out that while much research has focused on retraining, other policies like social insurance may offer greater value in terms of improving social welfare.

In the realm of justice and engagement issues, Victor noted that panel discussions examined which engagement strategies ultimately affected outcomes. Drawing insights from other areas in which engagement has steered technological innovation in particular directions, he highlighted the need to explore how various types of engagement strategies might affect attitudes towards new technologies and political interests—in turn, affecting outcomes. He underscored the critical role of credibility in influencing which infrastructure and capital-intensive projects

are built, and raised the question of what might be done to build trust and credibility from the outset. He went on to emphasize the importance of program evaluation, particularly from a justice impact perspective. Victor noted several discussions about Community Benefits Plans (CBPs), prompting a call for rethinking both theory and empirics around CBPs and increasing the focus on where and how CBPs affect engagement.

The fourth area Victor discussed involved directing technological development. He emphasized the importance of frameworks for understanding how decarbonization investments generate local benefits, including co-benefits such as cleaner air. He asked if certain technologies, such as those deployed on electricity networks, may have more favorable politics because the industry is highly regulated and benefits are concentrated locally. Additionally, Victor inquired about whether siting processes could be established in ways that create self-supporting political dynamics—thus transforming actions that might be difficult to get started into those that become easier with effort. The focus extended to understanding and quantifying the allocation of benefits from government-backed projects.

Looking across these four areas, Victor then asked how to engage the social sciences in the context of industrial decarbonization. He suggested engaging professional social science institutions—most of which are not focused on climate change—in a mapping exercise to enumerate key social science aspects of industrial decarbonization and subsequently explore how social scientists would approach these questions from their respective disciplines. In that context, Victor suggested conducting “tournaments of theories” to assess a variety of theories from the social sciences on their ability to explain—and guide policy for—important aspects of industrial decarbonization. He suggested that special value be placed on industrial decarbonization activities likely to be especially useful for decreasing emissions such as the huge siting of new infrastructures such as transmission and pipes.

Victor closed by pondering the “gaps” in the social sciences, including which are likely to be filled and which may persist. Regarding the gaps, he presented the following hypotheses:

• Topics aligned with social scientists’ existing approaches (e.g., organized labor’s response to technologies that affect existing industries) attract more research. Other examples might include how organized labor will react to technologies that affect existing industries, or why some political interest groups are better organized or more influential than others.
• Gaps exist for complex topics that cut across disciplines, such as the design and evaluation of community benefit programs.
• Approaching climate as a unique topic probably hinders progress and narrows the range of social scientists involved, since intriguing ideas might come from outside the group of individuals who are primarily dedicated to climate change.
• Research areas requiring significant novel data could be very high-value topics—but are harder to work on due to a lack of data and the need to build technical expertise—so therefore could be overlooked. Program evaluations for technologies such as direct air capture and hydrogen hubs could be an example.
• Social science questions framed by technologists may not align with the ways social scientists think—for example, the need to understand “why people don’t adopt the right technologies.”

INTEGRATING SOCIAL SCIENCES INTO ENGINEERING EDUCATION FOR HOLISTIC PROBLEM SOLVING

Udayan Singh, Planning Committee Member, suggested the possibility of restructuring traditional engineering curricula to integrate social science perspectives. Victor responded that it is essential to integrate social sciences into technology models to better understand their real world implications. By incorporating social science perspectives, modeling efforts can more accurately predict outcomes, he noted, particularly in scenarios in which political dynamics influence technology adoption and support.

The significance of bridging the gap between the current situation in the social sciences and future efforts needed from social scientists was highlighted by Planning Committee Member Emily Grubert. She pointed out the importance of going beyond mere reaction to existing policy frameworks and instead focusing on addressing major gaps in the social sciences. Addressing gaps includes delving into issues of institutional design and governance without relying solely on established policies for direction.

Transforming engineering education, panelist Jennifer Hirsch suggested, is fundamental for preventing the need to repeatedly hold discussions like those in this workshop. There is a need to challenge assumptions, she commented, including hierarchical social science structures in which disciplines like anthropology and history are often marginalized. She added that integrating social sciences and humanities into foundational education is crucial for fostering a broader understanding of societal issues and shaping a comprehensive educational experience for engineers. Additionally, she noted that it is critical for decarbonization discussions to consider equity from the outset and, by so doing, ensure that diverse perspectives shape problem framing. Hirsch concluded that, ultimately, prioritizing certain social sciences when framing questions can lead to holistic and effective approaches to addressing complex challenges.

Planning Committee Member Elke Weber pointed out that despite efforts to promote interdisciplinary education in engineering, practical support often falls short, resulting in funding- and recognition-related challenges for interdisciplinary research projects.

EXPLORING FUNDING CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IN CLIMATE AND INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION INITIATIVES

Susan Tierney, Planning Committee Chair, touched upon the current social science research funding landscape that is influenced by external factors such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. She said some valuable suggestions from workshop discussions may not align with federal funding priorities, posing a challenge in advancing important work. Foundation funding offers an alternative, she noted, but foundations do not typically fund research. She added that this dilemma underscores the need to explore diverse funding sources to effectively support socially relevant research initiatives.

Victor offered two suggestions. First, he noted the need to examine and understand what works and what does not with regard to government implementation of industrial policies. Given current investments, he said there is a pressing need to effectively evaluate these interventions, which involves building the necessary institutions to facilitate such evaluations. Second, he noted the tendency to focus research efforts where funding opportunities exist, often overlooking areas that are less familiar or have not yet been attempted. Therefore, Victor noted, it might be beneficial to explore areas in which existing policies shape problem framing, or where research outcomes are likely to be narrow and fail to consider a broad range of possibilities.

Panelist Shade Shutters discussed the possibility of engaging social scientists in climate-related research by making this agenda appealing to them. There is a broader social science audience interested in understanding transitions in social systems, he said. Framing climate research as contributing to this broader understanding, he added, may attract a wider range of interested scientists. Shutters also noted that since U.S. federal agencies typically do not fund the type of research he performs, his funding comes primarily from foundations or other governments—particularly those in Europe.

Weber observed that engaging social scientists in applied research is challenging because academia often perceives applied work as inferior. Additionally, interdisciplinary work requires significant upfront investment of time and effort which may be unappealing to researchers, especially junior faculty. Research funding and senior faculty buy-in can help incentivize engagement, Weber stressed, but scaling up such efforts is difficult due to limited support structures.

Panelist Benjamin Sovacool pointed out an example of a funding model found in the United Kingdom’s 2008 Climate Change Act, which mandates binding carbon budgets for industries¹ and under which noncompliance results in substantial fines. The United Kingdom has also established the Industrial Decarbonisation Challenge with a budget of £210 million earmarked for supporting industrial decarbonization efforts.² Based on the fact that the United Kingdom’s economy is smaller than that of the United States, Sovacool estimated around $350 billion could be needed for a similar U.S. challenge fund.

___________________

¹ More information about Climate Change Act 2008 is available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents

² More information about the Industrial Decarbonisation Challenge is available at https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/browse-our-areas-of-investment-and-support/industrial-decarbonisation/

Singh noted two distinct scales of funding to consider. On the one hand, setting up research centers may require a few hundred million dollars at most. On the other hand, providing insurance for lost wages could entail hundreds of billions of dollars, a sum that governments may struggle to allocate.

REVISITING THEORY

Sovacool suggested revisiting the concept of theory. In academia, he pointed out, the choice of a particular theory often stems from the influence of one’s academic advisor, which can lead to biases and the formation of theory-based “clubs” for particular models or frameworks. This can be problematic, he continued, if a theory inadequately addresses the research question. As an example, he noted Graham Allison’s 1969 study of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which examined the crisis through the application of three conceptual models, illustrating the importance of theoretical triangulation.³ He expressed curiosity about how a “tournament of theories” concept could be operationalized.

Victor pointed out that, unlike in physics, directly addressing causality can be challenging in social science fields due to imperfect cause and effect relationships. This complexity, akin to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, can lead to disagreements on fundamental principles. However, Victor noted that similar to the modeling community, social sciences can employ approaches such as comparing rival explanations or modeling projections to assess their robustness. Victor emphasized that predictive tournaments do not have clear cut outcomes or winners, but they help gauge the strength of competing theories.

Weber mentioned that while tournaments are appealing, applying them in fields like psychology to better understand behavior change has shown that effective action can be elusive.

INTEGRATING PROCESS AND OUTCOMES INTO SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

Weber observed two dichotomies: one between concern for processes versus outcomes, and another between qualitative versus quantitative methods. She noted the need to better integrate these aspects in future research to understand how processes translate into outcomes.

Victor emphasized that a research bias towards outcomes versus processes sometimes results in an overemphasis on measurable outcomes and neglect of the complexities. While outcomes like the allocation of costs and benefits to various groups are easier to measure and therefore receive more attention, Victor noted procedural considerations are often seen as harder to measure and, consequently, can be undervalued in research discussions.

THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION AND RESEARCH FUNDING

Tierney shared that in her experience the human element in industrial decarbonization has often been overlooked compared to technical aspects. Advocating for greater attention to the role of people in facilitating or hindering changes, she highlighted the need to prioritize understanding human systems alongside technical solutions. She went on to note the importance of defining terms and interdisciplinary approaches, pointing out that the questions social scientists may be interested in exploring differ from the interests of policymakers or other stakeholders. Funding, and specifically who bears the costs of research and implementation, is another crucial consideration—one that raises questions about incentivizing certain behaviors or technologies as well as about broader political economy-related implications. To conclude, Tierney said she values Victor’s prioritization approach not as a definitive directive but as useful guidance, helping to focus efforts effectively given time and resource limitations.

Hirsch noted that Tierney’s comments sparked two thoughts. First, there is the question of compensation and who pays for the research, particularly when it comes to engaging community partners. She commented that the Georgia Institute of Technology’s website, for example, has a compensation table that outlines payment amounts

___________________

³ Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954423

for various types of partnership work.⁴ The topic of compensation raises broader questions about funding priorities and the perception of available resources, especially in comparison to other areas like the resources that were used for pandemic relief efforts.

Second, Hirsch highlighted a notable consideration of the nature and definition of expertise, its production, and its ownership. There is a tendency to prioritize peer-reviewed literature over other forms or sources of knowledge—such as community memoranda or policy papers—despite their valuable insights derived from real-world experience. Commenting further on important questions surrounding the ownership of intellectual property and data rights within communities, Hirsch stressed the need for a research agenda that genuinely respects and involves communities.

Sovacool noted significant debate in areas such as the appropriate leakage rates for carbon capture and storage reservoirs. These debates hinge on how data are counted and interpreted, which he emphasized can greatly influence policy decisions.

NAVIGATING THE RISKS OF MISSION-DRIVEN RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Tierney remarked that, as she was reading the papers, she was curious about the political risks associated with mission-driven research. She asked participants whether mission-driven research, aimed at achieving specific outcomes, poses the risk of being seen as biased by those who disagree with the results and whether participants have grappled with this issue.

Grubert responded that she does encounter the issue of mission-driven research, especially in topics like carbon management and hydrogen. She suggested that many social science questions are geared towards achieving specific outcomes, resembling marketing research. She noted the imbalance in research streams between disciplines and expressed concern that social science has relinquished the responsibility of shaping the future world to engineers, and therefore the same engineers are missing out on valuable insights that social science perspectives could provide. Grubert emphasized the importance of addressing fundamental questions about societal choices and research designs and went on to raise concerns about funding disparities between theoretical and applied research.

FINAL THOUGHTS: BEYOND PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH

Victor addressed two important points raised earlier in the workshop. First, he challenged the notion that peer-reviewed research is the only valid form of research, given that alternative sources of information may be equally—or even more—valid. He emphasized that quality control mechanisms in nontraditional research environments need to be further explored. Second, he noted broader questions beyond the workshop’s scope, such as the scalability of programs. Victor stressed that while the social sciences may not be currently prepared for large-scale climate-focused initiatives, understanding how to ramp up programs effectively is an important area for consideration.

In closing, Tierney thanked everyone for their participation and noted that the next day’s panels would focus on overarching themes—environmental justice (see Chapter 7), governance structures (see Chapter 8), and decision making (see Chapter 9)—rather than on individual paper presentations.

___________________

⁴ For more information about guidance for partnership compensation see https://serve-learn-sustain.gatech.edu/collaborating-partners

This page intentionally left blank.