1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN:
PDF

Abstract

The future of geoenergy, as recently outlined by Gluyas and Fowler in their 2024 article (https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2023-058), is driven by a need to transition to low-carbon energy technologies. Such a transition is closely intertwined with society; that is, individual consumers, households, communities, companies, non-governmental organizations, policymakers and other agents will be affected by and respond to changes in energy systems. We believe that it is imperative for the field of geoenergy to also study human, social and cultural aspects of geoenergy; areas that are usually covered by the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS). Despite an abundance of literature on the integration of AHSS disciplines in the field of (geo)energy, it often remains difficult to achieve its full potential in supporting the decarbonization of energy systems to benefit society. We argue that successful AHSS–geoenergy integration starts at research centres such as the Research Ireland Centre for Applied Geosciences (iCRAG), which provides research collaboration on a meso level. To achieve successful AHSS–geoenergy integration, we developed a roadmap based on the development of a positive research culture. We illustrate this with successful examples of AHSS–geoenergy integrated projects.

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. Publishing disclaimer: https://www.lyellcollection.org/publishing-hub/publishing-ethics

[open-access]

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-018
2025-11-20
2025-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-018
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/geoenergy/3/1/geoenergy2025-018.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-018&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abrahamse, W. and Schuitema, G.2020. Psychology and energy conservation: contributions from theory and practice. In:Marta, L., Henggeler Antunes, C. and Janda, K.B. (eds) Energy and Behaviour. Towards a Low Carbon Future. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 19–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adeyanju, O.M.2023. Objectivity, social sciences, and the charge of inferiority. Conatus – Journal of Philosophy, 8, 9–28, doi: 10.12681/cjp.2558210.12681/cjp.25582
     https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.25582 [Google Scholar]
  3. Appel, H., Mason, A. and Watts, M. (eds) 2015. Subterranean Estates. Life Worlds of Oil and Gas. Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashton, H.2023. Cutting the STEM of future skills: beyond the STEM vs art dichotomy in England. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 22, 148–163, doi: 10.1177/1474022223115689310.1177/14740222231156893
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14740222231156893 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bain, P.G., Hornsey, M.J., Bongiorno, R. and Jeffries, C.2012. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2, 600–603, doi: 10.1038/nclimate153210.1038/nclimate1532
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosch, G.2018. Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists. Nature, 554, 277, doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01853-110.1038/d41586‑018‑01853‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01853-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bostrom, A., Böhm, G. and O'Connor, R.E.2013. Targeting and tailoring climate change communications. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 447–455, doi: 10.1002/wcc.23410.1002/wcc.234
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.234 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, S.-A., Sparapani, R. et al.2023. Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams. American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice, 32, 100306, doi: 10.1016/j.ahjo.2023.10030610.1016/j.ahjo.2023.100306
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahjo.2023.100306 [Google Scholar]
  9. Buitendijk, T., Cahillane, A., Brannigan, J. and Crowe, T.P.2024. Valuing plurality: environmental humanities approaches to ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people. Environmental Science and Policy, 162, 103907, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.10390710.1016/j.envsci.2024.103907
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103907 [Google Scholar]
  10. Buitendijk, T., Adjei, M., Raatikainen, K.J., Carballo Cárdenas, E.C., Varjopuro, R. and Schuitema, G.2026. A goal-based typology of sociogoverance processes in the management of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management, 271, 107948, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.10794810.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107948
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107948 [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke, M., Ockwell, D. and Whitmarsh, L.2018. Participatory arts and affective engagement with climate change: the missing link in achieving climate compatible behaviour change?Global Environmental Change, 49, 95–105, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.00710.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Castree, N.2021. Making the environmental humanities consequential in “The age of consequences”: the potential of global environmental assessments. Environmental Humanities, 13, 433–458, doi: 10.1215/22011919-932023310.1215/22011919‑9320233
     https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-9320233 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cousse, J., Trutnevyte, E. and Hahnel, U.J.J.2021. Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance. Energy Policy, 158, 112547, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.11254710.1016/j.enpol.2021.112547
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112547 [Google Scholar]
  14. Deutsch, L., Pohl, C., Bresch, D.N. and Hoffmann, S.2025. Creating favorable conditions for inter- and transdisciplinary integration – an analytical framework and empirical insights. Global Environmental Change, 91, 102963, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.10296310.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102963
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102963 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gluyas, J.G. and Fowler, N.2024. The future of geoenergy – a perspective. Geoenergy, 2, doi: 10.1144/geoenergy2023-05810.1144/geoenergy2023‑058
     https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2023-058 [Google Scholar]
  16. Haraway, D.1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599, doi: 10.2307/317806610.2307/3178066
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hartman, S.2020. Into the fray: a call for policy-engaged and actionable environmental humanities. European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment, 11, 187–199, doi: 10.37536/ECOZONA.2020.11.2.354710.37536/ECOZONA.2020.11.2.3547
     https://doi.org/10.37536/ECOZONA.2020.11.2.3547 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heberlein, T.A.1988. Improving interdisciplinary research: integrating the social and natural sciences. Society & Natural Resources, 1, 5–16, doi: 10.1080/0894192880938063410.1080/08941928809380634
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928809380634 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kimmerer, R.W.2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Klein, J.T.1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Wayne State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Latour, B.2018. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LeMenager, S.2014. Living Oil. Petroleum Culture in the American Century. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Mac Mahon, J., Revez, A., Burke, M., Hogan, P. and Nyhan, M.M.2025. Arts, creative & cultural initiatives for citizen engagement on climate action: insights from Ireland's Creative Climate Action Fund. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 9, 100274, doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2024.10027410.1016/j.crsust.2024.100274
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100274 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mallaband, B., Wood, G., Buchanan, K., Staddon, S., Mogles, N.M. and Gabe-Thomas, E.2017. The reality of cross-disciplinary energy research in the United Kingdom: a social science perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 25, 9–18, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.00110.1016/j.erss.2016.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Miller, T.R., Baird, T.D., Littlefield, C.M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F.S. and Redman, C.L.2008. Epistemological pluralism reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13, doi: 10.5751/ES-02671-13024610.5751/ES‑02671‑130246
     https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02671-130246 [Google Scholar]
  26. Moon, K. and Blackman, D.2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology, 28, 1167–1177, doi: 10.1111/cobi.1232610.1111/cobi.12326
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nielsen, K.S., Cologna, V., Lange, F., Brick, C. and Stern, P.C.2021. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101559, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.10155910.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101559
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101559 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pellegrino, M. and Musy, M.2017. Seven questions around interdisciplinarity in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science, 32, 1–12, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.07.00710.1016/j.erss.2017.07.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rhoten, D. and Parker, A.2004. Education. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306, 2046, doi: 10.1126/science.110362810.1126/science.1103628
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103628 [Google Scholar]
  30. Roosen, L.J., Klöckner, C.A. and Swim, J.K.2017. Visual art as a way to communicate climate change: a psychological perspective on climate change–related art. World Art, 8, 85–110, doi: 10.1080/21500894.2017.137500210.1080/21500894.2017.1375002
     https://doi.org/10.1080/21500894.2017.1375002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ryder, S.S., Dickie, J.A. and Devine-Wright, P.2023. “Do you know what's underneath your feet?”: underground landscapes & place-based risk perceptions of proposed shale gas sites in rural British communities. Rural Sociology, 88, 1131–1162, doi: 10.1111/ruso.1251310.1111/ruso.12513
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12513 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schuitema, G. and Sintov, N.2017. Should we quit our jobs? Challenges, barriers and recommendations for interdisciplinary energy research. Energy Policy, 101, 246–250, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.04310.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.043
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.043 [Google Scholar]
  33. Shapin, S.2022. Hard science, soft science: a political history of a disciplinary array. History of Science, 60, 287–328, doi: 10.1177/0073275322109473910.1177/00732753221094739
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753221094739 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shove, E.2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42, 1273–1285, doi: 10.1068/a4228210.1068/a42282
     https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shove, E.2011. On the difference between chalk and cheese – a response to Whitmarsh et al.’s comments on “beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change”. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43, 262–264, doi: 10.1068/a4348410.1068/a43484
     https://doi.org/10.1068/a43484 [Google Scholar]
  36. Small, H.2013. The Value of the Humanities. 1st edn. Oxford University Press, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683864.001.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683864.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683864.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Soares, P.H., Kang, M. and Choo, P.2024. Art and design entanglements for renewable energy education: renewable energy art and design approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 20, e2401, doi: 10.29333/ijese/1407310.29333/ijese/14073
     https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/14073 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sonetti, G., Arrobbio, O., Lombardi, P., Lami, I.M. and Monaci, S.2020. “Only social scientists laughed”: reflections on social sciences and humanities integration in European energy projects. Energy Research & Social Science, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.10134210.1016/j.erss.2019.101342
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101342 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sovacool, B.K., Ryan, S.E. et al.2015. Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 95–99, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.00510.1016/j.erss.2014.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Spijkerboer, R.C., Turhan, E., Roos, A., Billi, M., Vargas-Payera, S., Opazo, J. and Armiero, M.2022. Out of steam? A social science and humanities research agenda for geothermal energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 92, 102801, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.10280110.1016/j.erss.2022.102801
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102801 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R.P., Hall, K.L. and Taylor, B.K.2008. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S96–S115, doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.00310.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Szeman, I.2019. On Petrocultures. Globalization, Culture, and Energy. West Virginia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. The Royal Society2017. Research Culture Embedding Inclusive Excellence: Insights on the Future Culture of Research, The Royal Society, https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/publications/2018/research-culture-embedding-inclusive-excellence/
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson, J.L.2009. Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 278–297, doi: 10.1080/0090988090302591110.1080/00909880903025911
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903025911 [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Valkengoed, A.M., Steg, L. et al.2021. Theory enhances impact. Reply to: ‘The case for impact-focused environmental psychology’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101597, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.10159710.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101597
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101597 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wardani, J., Bos, J.J., Ramirez-Lovering, D. and Capon, A.G.2022. Enabling transdisciplinary research collaboration for planetary health: insights from practice at the environment-health-development nexus. Sustainable Development, 30, 375–392, doi: 10.1002/sd.228010.1002/sd.2280
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2280 [Google Scholar]
  47. Watson, L.2022. The role of curiosity in successful collaboration. Scientia et Fides, 10, 31–49, doi: 10.12775/SetF.2022.01710.12775/SetF.2022.017
     https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2022.017 [Google Scholar]
  48. Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S. and Lorenzoni, I.2011. Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond disciplines. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43, 258–261, doi: 10.1068/a4335910.1068/a43359
     https://doi.org/10.1068/a43359 [Google Scholar]
  49. Woiwode, H. and Froese, A.2021. Two hearts beating in a research center's chest: how scholars in interdisciplinary research settings cope with monodisciplinary deep structures. Studies in Higher Education, 46, 2230–2244, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.171632110.1080/03075079.2020.1716321
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716321 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-018
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error