Transdisciplinary research methods in community energy development and governance in Indonesia: Insights for sustainability science

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

Transdisciplinary research methods in community energy development and governance in Indonesia: Insights for sustainability science ⁎

Sebastian Thomasa,b, , Max Richterc,d, Widia Lestaria, Shiskha Prabawaningtyase, Yudo Anggorof, Iskandar Kuntoadjig a

Sustainability Science Lab, University of Melbourne, Australia School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia c Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia d School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia e Department of International Relations, Universitas Paramadina, Indonesia f School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia g Institut Bisnis dan Ekonomi Kerakyatan (IBEKA), Indonesia b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Community renewable energy Sustainable development Transdisciplinarity

Community renewable energy can contribute to important social and environmental outcomes, and in less industrialised countries may be a means of achieving development priorities as well as climate mitigation goals. The complexity of such initiatives – involving regulatory, technological, financial, and governance issues – demands ways to integrate technical expertise, local cultural and environmental characteristics, and other relevant factors into development processes. This article reflects on a transdisciplinary project that investigated how renewable energy could be implemented to meet the needs and aspirations of rural and remote Indonesian communities. We discuss the sustainability science approach taken and how the transdisciplinary methodology was applied. The article addresses themes of language and communication, methods of knowledge production, legitimacy, planning and time management, and the role and impacts of social and technical disciplines in the research. The paper highlights specific challenges in these areas, and appropriate strategies to mitigate them. Our conclusions propose useful principles for this type of transdisciplinary work: preparation, common understandings, flexibility, shared responsibility, respect, and lightheartedness and humour. The manuscript identifies important empirical and methodological future research priorities, and offers insights to inform social research dimensions of applied research methods in the context of complex development initiatives and the multi-scale socio-economic and political systems in which they take place.

1. Introduction Transitions away from carbon-intensive energy supply to renewable energy systems are a contemporary imperative given the existential threats posed by climate change [1,2]. There is tremendous diversity in the theoretical approaches brought to bear in energy transition research, and a need to integrate diverse disciplinary and conceptual perspectives and tools to ensure not only comprehensive and effective epistemologies but to avoid disciplinary introversion and intellectual rigidity [3]. At the same time, energy transition research occurs in such different geographic, demographic, economic, cultural, and environmental contexts that scalar lenses are needed to understand and connect disparate spatial, temporal, and cultural features of energy access and transition processes [4–6]. ⁎

While there is academic recognition that energy transitions are multi-dimensional and involve not simply technical reconfigurations but substantial evolutions in social and economic systems [6], in many industrialising economies development processes continue to be conducted through ‘traditional’ approaches [7–9]. These can be described as linear, top-down, engineering-based solutions, and are arguably driven by mental models that are a legacy of colonial imperialism and neoclassical economic worldviews [8]. The dominance of these worldviews and their application in conceptualising spatial and temporal aspects of energy transition determine policy design and activities on the ground, and constrain opportunities to imagine alternative energy futures [4]. Electricity availability and usage are associated with successful development initiatives in industrialising nations [10–12].

Corresponding author at: Sustainability Science Lab, University of Melbourne, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Thomas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.021 Received 10 November 2017; Received in revised form 18 June 2018; Accepted 27 June 2018 2214-6296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Thomas, S., Energy Research & Social Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.021

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

even months, remaining inoperable thereafter due to insufficient local technical capability, social disruption, or financial resources [27,28]. Arguably, these failures result from the traditional paradigm of energy provision and development, which understands energy in largely technical and objective terms, as a mechanistic and quantifiable economic issue [8,78]. This worldview has prioritised instrumental and capitalist approaches to development, yet in many cases failed to meet the needs of people and place [27,29]. In the first issue of Energy Research & Social Science, Spreng [30] called for researchers to understand their positioning in the wider community of scholarship and in application to real-world issues, with reference to Max-Neef’s [31] articulation of a transdisciplinary conceptual framework. In this paper we answer that call, describing how transdisciplinary principles and tools were applied in a collaborative research project that investigated how renewable energy might be most successfully implemented to meet the livelihood needs and aspirations of rural and remote Indonesian communities. We build on the work of scholars and practitioners reported in this journal and other venues, exploring how small-scale renewable energy could support and empower communities in different rural areas of the Indonesian archipelago. An investigation of this nature demands the integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives across a range of spatial, temporal, institutional, jurisdictional, management, and knowledge scales [13,75,76], and therefore presents substantial methodological challenges. These issues include how to successfully combine and balance differing approaches to data collection and analysis, how to manage diverse stakeholder needs and priorities, and how to build coherent and cohesive syntheses of disparate types of knowledge [75,76,79]. The central focus of our larger project was to understand how coalitions of diverse stakeholder groups could most effectively engage in productive processes to achieve sustainability goals, with the explicit intention of facilitating empowerment of communities rather than realisation of the goals of more dominant stakeholders in the Indonesian energy system [76]. The methodological intent was to apply transdisciplinary frameworks and approaches within a sustainability science agenda; that is, considering interactions between communities and their environments, their immediate needs and longer term aspirations, and potential pathways to realise these more sustainable futures. Rather than defining research questions in advance, our approach was to pursue understanding of community needs and aspirations as a starting point, and then to explore issues of governance, with communities and other stakeholders. This approach is discussed in Section 3 below. Collaborative and transdisciplinary approaches to research and community development are arguably the most genuinely effective and enduring within a sustainability paradigm, yet by their very nature are methodologically complex, potentially unwieldy, and frequently uncertain [32–34]. For this reason, it is important for transdisciplinary researchers to build their methodological competencies and rigour. It is here that this paper offers valuable insights on method and thus contributions to applied sustainability science. Data were collected between November 2016 and June 2017 through focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews with community members, government officers, and civil society practitioners during three rounds of field visits to multiple communities in the central island of Java and the outlying province of North Maluku. The research team comprised academics from Indonesian and Australian universities and an Indonesian civil society organisation (CSO) that has been involved in community development and small-scale renewable energy provision since the 1980s. Disciplinary expertise included social-ecological systems, anthropology, ecological economics, political science, strategic management, finance, urban planning, engineering, and development studies. This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we introduce the transdisciplinary sustainability science methodology, articulating the core characteristics of the sustainability science approach, and orienting the research objectives to Max-Neef’s [31] transdisciplinarity

Development practices that are primarily oriented toward economic outcomes, however, tend to undermine environmental conditions and social equity, which are central features of sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) declared in 2015 – superseding the Millennium Development Goals – represent a broad range of sustainability objectives, from climate change mitigation and innovation in industrial systems, to sustainable cities and sanitation, and biodiversity conservation and ecological health on land and in the ocean. Central to the SDGs are social and economic themes including gender equality, education, justice, and livelihoods. A case study context that brings together these themes of scale, development paradigms, urbanisation, and sustainability is Indonesia, where as much as a quarter of the population (around 65 million people) live in rural or remote villages [13,14]. Indonesia’s development agenda includes installing an additional 35 GW of new electricity generation capacity by 2025, with at least 23% of national supply being sourced from renewable energy technologies [15,16]. While Indonesian government energy policies are not firmly established, there is a national consensus that providing electricity to most communities throughout the country is an important objective of the country’s development trajectory. This agenda demonstrates three characteristics identified by Araújo [17] as key assumptions of the broader policy and practitioner communities engaged in the energy transition sphere: urgency of action, recognition of trade-offs, and pursuit of innovation. All of these are areas in which social science research is important. Although the focus of this journal is on research generalisable beyond single-country studies, Indonesia is an exceptional case. Indonesia is a single nation-state, but must also be understood as a vast archipelagic territory comprising hundreds of distinct cultural and linguistic groups, diverse ecosystems and natural habitats, and rich, varied, and often conflicted histories [18]. While a common language is considered a unifying feature, the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia) is not widely spoken in many communities, including some located in Java, the most populated island and home to the national government. For these reasons, in social-ecological terms Indonesia can be also be considered as a region – not unlike the Caribbean, for example (cf. [5]) – and not simply a single, cohesive nation-state. Indonesia’s national development strategies promote electrification as a means to address many of the interconnected Sustainable Development Goals. For Indonesia, achieving the SDG targets is a matter of national priority, and mandated since July 2017 by Presidential Regulation 59/2017. The Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources has reported that national electrification coverage reached 91.16% by the end of 2016, increasing from 84.35% at the end of 2014 [19]. The target established in the 2015–2019 National Medium Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional, or RPJMN) is 96.6% by the end of 2019. Indonesia is undergoing a transformation from a rural to an urban economy, with its cities growing 4.1% faster than other Asian cities [20,21]. While currently 54% of Indonesia’s population live in urban areas it is expected that by 2025 this will grow to 68% [20–22]. Not only does this rapid urbanization bring enormous challenges for urban areas, but also creates imbalances between urban and rural areas [23]. In the past seven decades, the national government has concentrated on urban development, especially in Java, with less emphasis on rural areas [24]. However, the national and regional governments now have a legal obligation to provide funding for electricity supply to disadvantaged communities, and develop electricity infrastructure in remote, underdeveloped, and border regions, as well as for rural areas ([25]: ix; see UU No.30 Tahun 2009). Distributed small-scale power generation is necessary to meet the needs of rural and remote communities, but implementation faces diverse and location-specific challenges that can be cultural, technical, practical, socio-economic, as well as financial in nature [10,26]. There are many cases of community renewable energy systems provided by government that are not effectively maintained and fail within years or 2

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

broadly) was conducted with explicit recognition of the complex energy governance system – from the international Sustainable Development Goals and Indonesia’s national electrification agenda and policy approaches, to commercial behaviours within market and regulatory contexts, and the practical realities of local energy infrastructure in remote areas of Indonesia. The research team understood the technical characteristics of Indonesia’s grid, regulatory frameworks, and local renewable energy opportunities, and placed community needs and cultural characteristics at the heart of the project. This emerging field of integrative research faces several key challenges. First, environmental sciences and engineering tend to dominate, with less attention paid to social science and studies of human development [37]. Second, there are methodological challenges in integrating diverse disciplinary perspectives and approaches in applied research endeavours, and sustainability science must grapple with these and produce clear and actionable responses [47]. Third, sustainability science must more authentically and comprehensively integrate critical theoretical perspectives to demonstrate its relevance and likely longevity as a mature science of the 21st century, addressing contemporary challenges in modern ways built on the finest traditions of centuries of critical scholarship [48,77]. Finally, sustainability science – while demonstrating broad spatial distribution in scholarly participation and impact – must continue to pursue diversity and cross-cultural engagement in its application [37,49]. These challenges need to be addressed so that sustainability science is better positioned to pursue one of its core priorities: understanding how society can most effectively govern interconnected human and natural systems to achieve more sustainable futures [36]. This paper offers contributions in these areas by (1) focusing on social aspects of development processes; (2) offering practical insights into transdisciplinary methods; (3) doing both of these with reference to established critical social science theories; and (4) conducting the research with a team representing diversity in culture, language, gender, and age, as well as disciplinary backgrounds and institutional seniority. The paper demonstrates the application of the transdisciplinary framework in applied research on energy development and governance, and then offers critical reflections on the challenges of this type of work, and how these difficulties were solved, offering valuable insights and learnings for similar projects in the future. It is useful to distinguish between multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary approaches to research. Following Max-Neef [31], multidisciplinarity can be seen to involve experts in different fields seeking to address the same problem separately using their particular tools and methods. Interdisciplinarity brings these experts together in a coordinated effort. Transdisciplinarity similarly involves the coordination and integration of multiple academic disciplines, but also requires engagement with non-academic expertise, including community, practitioner, and indigenous perspectives, as appropriate to the specific study [50,51]. In transdisciplinary research, questions and methods are developed collaboratively with research participants; further, it is expected that all stakeholders involved will themselves be somehow changed by the process [50]. Transdisciplinarity considers a four level disciplinary framework: from empirical studies (what we know), to applied practices (what we can do), to normative pursuits (what we want to do), to purposive orientations (why we do things). The methodology applied in this project used Max-Neef’s [31] framework to orient different disciplinary positions to address a higher level question around governance – which is rarely articulated in the TD framework, but occurs across the purposive and normative levels of the framework. Fig. 1 below is adapted from Max-Neef [31] and Spreng [30], and indicates how our team’s areas of expertise – including anthropology, social-ecological systems theory, urban planning, political science, economics, and engineering – were aligned with the transdisciplinary framework. Further, the figure indicates the first order research questions focused on community needs and aspirations, exploring the

framework. Section 3 presents details of the research locations, study processes, and analytical approach, and explains how research aims and questions evolved in line with the transdisciplinary framework. We briefly summarize the study results, highlighting both the first order findings on Indonesian rural and remote community needs and aspirations, and second order findings on governance. In Section 4 we discuss the challenges, strengths, and opportunities inherent in the transdisciplinary research process, and then highlight and reflect on the role and impacts of social, economic, technical, and cultural sciences in the research process. Section 5 concludes the paper, offering specific methodological recommendations for future studies and a list of research priorities in community energy development. The manuscript contributes to the important and developing field of integrative sustainability science, offering insights to inform social research dimensions of inter- and transdisciplinary applied research methods in the context of complex development initiatives and the multi-scale socioeconomic and political systems in which such initiatives take place. 2. Methodology: transdisciplinary sustainability science The research project was driven by the principles of sustainability science [34–36]. Sustainability science is a developing academic discipline that investigates the dynamics of interactions between human and environmental systems to identify preferred pathways to more sustainable future conditions. The sciences of sustainability range from biophysical to technical to social, and include industrial ecology, circular economies, ecological economics, political ecology, conservation biology, social-ecological systems thinking, resilience theory, and more [37,38]. Sustainability science is an umbrella discipline that seeks to integrate these areas to address 21st century realities and offer practical solutions. Further, sustainability science explores the transition processes that most effectively enable shifts from existing pathways to more sustainable trajectories [39]. Sustainability science is defined as a transdisciplinary and applied field [34], and an area of research and practice oriented to transition studies that should inform the development of deeper critical theory [3]. Sustainability science also rests on post-normal ontological foundations, meaning that knowledge is generated through recognition of complex and contested values and information, and often in situations of urgency or significance [40,41]. Uncertainty is embraced, and the role and importance of non-Western or alternative knowledges (including local and Indigenous traditional knowledge) are considered not only relevant but central to the discipline’s research agendas [42]. Knowledge is built through a constructivist process that acknowledges and seeks to combine different ways of interpreting human experience and meaning-building (cf. [43,44]). This feature places human experience at the centre of research processes. Sustainability scientists apply a range of linked competencies. These include: systems thinking (the recognition that events and actors do not exist in isolation but are part of complex and dynamic networks and processes, and the ability to map and model these systems); a normative capability (acknowledging and understanding the different world views, values, and beliefs of diverse stakeholders); an anticipatory capacity (the ability to develop realistic scenarios and model future outcomes); strategic intelligence (implying an ability to propose or identify actions and interventions that will affect the course of events, encouraging more desirable future outcomes); and finally, interpersonal skills (the ability to engage with different actors and groups effectively, positively, and authentically [45,46]. These characteristics of sustainability science underpinned the design and implementation of our research project. The central themes were identified in discussions with the core team including the CSO partner, and other industry and government actors. Specific questions were developed through further engagement with stakeholders during the field activities, and the study focused on real-world problems and potential solutions to these. The analysis below (and the project more 3

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

Fig. 1. The transdisciplinary framework as applied in the research project, showing empirical disciplinary expertise and areas of interest. First order research questions relating to needs and aspirations address themes in the pragmatic level of the framework, while issues relating to governance encompass the pragmatic and norms levels. Adapted from Max-Neef [31] and Spreng [30].

3.1. Research questions

pragmatic level of the transdisciplinary framework. Second order research questions investigated governance, which occurs across the pragmatic and normative levels of the framework. These are discussed in detail in Section 3. The research process in this project brought to bear variously challenging and productive aspects as a result of the diverse cross-national and transdisciplinary expertise involved, the close engagement with communities in disparate cultural and geographic contexts, and the focus on policy and political aspects of energy provision. The methodology demanded recognition of the necessary balance between long-term ethnographic immersion in a single site (or small number of sites) with larger spatial and governance aspects; that is, how to reconcile or integrate local voices with those of local, district, regional, and national governments, as well as commercial interests, cultural traditions and, to varying degrees, international involvement. Reflecting on this in turn signals a fresh approach to social aspects of engaging with climate change debates and realities.

The foundational themes for the research project were formulated through conversations among the research team based on their diverse expertise in renewable energy development, community issues, and Indonesian governance and culture, and clarified by the lead author as guiding topics for the field work. Prior to the field visits the team also formulated criteria for and identified the areas to be visited. This was arrived at through a combination of practicality (time was limited, and a team member was already deeply involved in the West Java cases); strategy (the Indonesian government had designated Morotai island as a priority development area, thereby presenting possible scope for longitudinal analysis into the future); and, conceptually most significant, socioeconomic and geophysical variance. Later on, village selection in Morotai was to require flexibility and adaptation to opportunity and circumstance on the ground. Early on the team also considered ways to best conduct the interviews and address the research objectives – these deliberations considered cultural, gender, linguistic, political, religious, and technical dimensions, assumptions, and sensitivities. For example, it was agreed to emphasise appreciation for the respondents’ time, and that we were researchers rather than delivering an aid project. Further, the importance of subtly maintaining a balance between forcing questions too directly and letting respondents extemporise freely was established, and the team formulated tactics for ensuring a diverse array of voices would be heard. While the team sought to select participants to represent the widest range of energy producer/users and local demographic indicators possible, in practice elements of luck and reliance on local interpetations of the research aims were considerable. However, so too local connections among the bilateral team aided the process, particularly in West Java, as did the (perhaps surprisingly, given how Australia-Indonesia relations are sometimes represented in the media) strong consensus across the project team regarding the need to stringently suspend judgement regarding community, and district and central government views and their respective merits. In turn, research questions in community focus group discussions, and individual interviews with community leaders, government officials, and other stakeholders, helped to guide discussion across four thematic areas: needs, aspirations, governance, and a miscellaneous category. The first two of these themes were explored as first order research questions:

3. Project details and outcomes The project was conceived during a leadership program held in May 2016 by the Australia-Indonesia Centre (AIC), a bilateral initiative supported by the governments of both countries. The AIC is primarily oriented towards collaborative research between leading universities, underpinned by an extensive and high-level engagement focus involving government agencies and prominent private sector organisations. During the AIC program the key researchers – two from Australian universities, two from Indonesian universities, and one from an Indonesian CSO focused on renewable energy and sustainable development – met, connected, and (following a call for funding applications by the AIC released at the same time as the leadership program) conceptualised the project. Once the competitive funding had been secured, two additional team members were engaged as research assistants, both being Indonesian nationals, one a late-stage Master’s student at an Australian university (co-supervised by two of the authors), the other a Master’s graduate from an Indonesian university (working with one of the Indonesian academics on the team). The research team were therefore all Indonesian or Australian nationals, with collective disciplinary expertise in anthropology, development studies, ecological economics, engineering, finance, political science, social-ecological systems, strategic management, and urban planning.

1 What were the community’s needs in terms of energy or electricity; and 4

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

Following the initial field visits to West Java in November 2016, interviews were transcribed (and in most cases translated). Two research assistants revisited West Java in February 2017, and distinct subproject areas were formulated, to be led by different members of the research team. Data analysis was structured around thematic areas that emerged from the initial field work, based on the field experience and extensive reading and re-reading of interview transcripts. Following the first stage of field work in West Java, the second site – Morotai, in North Maluku – was chosen, based on its contrasting geographical and demographic features relative to West Java. Morotai also rose above other potential sites with similar features due to its strategic importance in the wider AIC and Indonesian government strategic planning. A large amount of data was collected during the three field visits and through team interactions. Each day during the field research the team began with a coordinated plan of activities, separated to gather data, and then rejoined to collate and code the findings. To a considerable degree the team’s activities were made to fit with the rhythms of village social life. For example, efforts to ‘step back’ and reflect as a team on the new information and experiences at days end were often interlaced with unanticipated opportunities for further energy-specific and informal conversations and activities with local leadership and the broader citizenry. The formal group discussions and interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Transcripts were in turn coded using NVivo 11 (QSR International 2015) through a process guided by grounded theory [55]. The NVivo data analysis following the final field visit underwent an iterative process and produced several sub-categories and quantitative trends [55,56]. In other words, while the guiding questions for the interviewers were developed by the team, the NVivo analysis of the interviews and transcripts then produced the results categories – including gender and occupation cross-referenced with needs, aspirations and governance challenges – this being a combination of actual utterances in response to the guiding questions and the researchers’ interpretations and categorising of these. In turn, the results generated through placing these quantitative trends in dialogue with experiential and literature-based considerations form a key outcome of the wider study.

2 What were the community’s livelihood aspirations, should affordable and reliable energy access become a reality? These questions informed the initial moments of interviews and focus group discussion, and the early interest in topics of immediate concern to respondents contributed to establishing some degree of trust. At the same time, these questions – while prompting discursive answers – were relatively straightforward and empirical. The responses to these first order questions are presented and discussed in Section 3. The third research theme explored views on energy governance, a more complex topic. Governance is a potentially ambiguous and sometimes contested term [52,53]. Here, we understand governance as guidance of events in complex social-ecological systems, rather than law (established legislation) or regulation (the shaping of social and economic behaviours through incentives, market instruments, and education, inter alia); governance “does not privilege the state and state law is simply one node amongst many in a world of diffused power and responsibility” ([54], p. 120). The questions on governance asked respondents: 3 What are your views on: a Government policy for energy and development in rural communities; b Best-case scenarios for the future of the community in the context of government policy for energy and development in rural areas; c Worst-case scenarios for the future of the community in the context of government policy for energy and development in rural communities; d The actual trajectory? Respondents were also asked for their views on: e How national policy approaches could be reformed to meet the needs and aspirations of communities, particularly regarding electricity supply. The initial three themes of needs, aspirations, and governance were embedded in the project’s conceptualisation. Leading into the field work, the team also agreed to include a fourth miscellaneous category to capture data of potential significance that did not fit easily readily into the needs, aspirations, and governance categories. An iterative process was engaged, whereby the approaches deployed in West Java both informed and were modified for Morotai island. The West Java villages could if necessary be visited on a return day-trip from Jakarta, and community and government connections there were established prior to the team’s visit. Visiting far eastern Indonesia by contrast necessitated extensive planning and, despite having some prior connections, adapting on the ground to sudden ebbs and rises of meeting opportunities, often determined by local political factors into which the team had no insight. This meant that collectively the results were richly diverse and required considerable contextual nuancing.

3.3. Study results NVivo analysis of the interview data and subsequent revisions served to develop thematic links and correlations pertaining to locallevel electricity needs and aspirations, as well as local experiences and understandings across local, district/regional, and national levels of governance. Extensive discussion of these results is beyond the scope of the present paper (full results will be reported in a later paper by the authors), however it is important to touch on a key aspect here as it relates to our focus on transdisciplinary approaches and methodological challenges. While the process of moving from subjective interview experiences in the field to software-generated categorization of responses is familiar to qualitative researchers who use digital software tools, in the transdisciplinary team this served to highlight new challenges and, ultimately, insights. Discussion bringing together interpretations of the field experiences and the resultant response categories enabled speculation about numerous social dimensions of energy provision and governance. Five areas of villagers’ aspirations were identified should electricity become more reliable and plentiful (research questions 1 and 2). These were (1) to support livelihood and related economic activities; (2) for education; (3) for establishment of better health facilities; (4) to run household appliances; and (5) to run formal (government-supported) programs. Further, the study provided insights (in response to research question 3) on community understandings and experiences of governance at the local level, views on district government processes, awareness and opinions of national energy policy, and a range of

3.2. Project details Data for the study were collected through field visits to four villages in West Java and three others in North Maluku conducted between November 2016 and June 2017. The research team held focus group discussions and a series of individual in-depth interviews. The purpose of these was to gather information and perspectives on community energy needs, livelihood aspirations, and awareness of and relationships with various levels of governance. A total of 42 respondents (12 women and 30 men) participated in the research. Respondents included local community members (14), informal leaders (7), small-scale entrepreneurs (7), and government officers (14) from various agencies and levels. During field visits to West Java, the research team were accompanied by members of local CSOs that facilitate or manage renewable energy projects in the villages. Local government officers and local leaders also welcomed and assisted our visits. While in North Maluku, the Regent appointed his staff to support the research team. 5

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

miscellaneous findings, including life and village histories, technological change and education, and some surprising directions in proceedings (e.g. the CSO interruptions discussed in Sarrica et al., this issue). The team’s focus on energy provision and local needs, aspirations, and understandings of governance, along with the attention to local historical, value-based and other contextual factors, helped to build highly detailed snapshots of village-level energy issues. By researching villages in montainous West Java and Morotai island in the far-east North Maluku province in the one study, the team was able to compile and analyse comparable data and perspectives from different geographic and cultural contexts. These extended from livelihood needs and aspirations and governance issues across the sites, through to – of central importance here – explicit consideration of the social research methods employed to identify and understand these localised, community-level topics. The broader results can be summarised here with the contention that communities in both settings overwhelmingly focus on health, education, and livelihood concerns when discussing energy provision, whereas government authorities foreground economic development priorities.

understandings further aided through the inclusion of outsider researchers in the discussion. Reflecting on the research process in this project, it can be argued that efforts to develop common understandings to bridge these technical and linguistic domains will benefit enormously through dedicating solid time to the problem, sharing a first-hand experience with the technology in action, nurturing a broadly held belief or trust in the value of the research, having interlocutors invested in the process, and deploying novel devices such as pictograms. 4.2. Methods of knowledge production A core challenge of transdisciplinary research is establishing agreed and integrated methods of knowledge production [34,50]. The different ontologies and epistemologies of the social and technical disciplines involved in the research result in unique and specific investigative and analytical methodologies; transdisciplinary research – involving collaboration and co-creation across academic, cultural, and professional fields – demands that these disparate approaches are brought together to create novel syntheses and original, relevant solution-oriented research practice [34,50]. Debate over the location of case study sites as well as how best to engage with stakeholders in the field demonstrated the importance of transdisciplinary definitions of priorities and possibilities. The snowball method – building research collaborations through participant referrals and recommendations – identified genuinely relevant and interested research participants. These can be understood as pragmatic and logistical considerations. The disciplinary perspective of strategic (business) management considers the use of internal and external resources to achieve organisational goals. Remote areas included in this study faced challenges as local people can lack capacity (internal resources) and also because government policies (external resources) are logistically difficult to implement. From this perspective, the challenge of research into regional economic development relates foremost to the lack of data available to measure the impact of government renewable energy policy on local community outcomes. Porter [57,58] suggested that measuring regional economic development can be traced through the existence of industry clusters that will bring economic spillover effects to broader society. However, this does not necessarily apply in developing contexts – the remote areas where this study was undertaken do not have formal industries. Most people in these areas work in informal sectors, which makes it difficult to collect data that conform with standard monitoring protocols [59]. Increasing the technical capacity of local people is a central challenge to formal industrial development [60]. For political scientists, in contrast, interest lies in how elites determine and define local problems, and how elite power structures and their relations to wider society will determine outcomes [80]. This perspective frequently ignores or downplays bottom-up perspectives and community actors, which are vital to genuine sustainable development. The multi-layered construction of problems through engagement with community groups and other stakeholders outside of academia was central to the knowledge construction process. It was necessary to integrate the diverse disciplinary assumptions and interests, and ground the resulting research synthesis in the authentic lived experiences of project participants. We found that the tools of professional research practice – particularly the ethics approval process, as well as an agreed code of conduct based on principles of trust and respect to disciplinary backgrounds and local cultures and knowledges – substantially mitigated the challenges faced in this area.

4. Reflections on the transdisciplinary methodology All team members collectively discussed and then provided individual reflections on the challenges, strengths, and opportunities of the transdisciplinary sustainability science approach, and considered solutions to the main constraints. These individual reflections explored a range of themes that are characterised here as language and communication, methods of knowledge production, legitimacy, planning and time management, and the role and impacts of social and technical disciplines in the research. Our shared insights, drawn from individual reflection and bilateral and group discussions, are synthesized in the text below. 4.1. Language and communication The goal of a transdisciplinary team is to stimulate new ideas and solutions resulting from collaboration between team members [34,50]. A central challenge in this project was to establish a ‘common language’ understood by all team members, avoiding disciplinary jargon and ensuring that key terms were comprehended and shared. This was vital to locating and constructing problems in the field research. Diverse areas of expertise also imply different interests among the researchers. Discussions can be led or dominated by one discipline, weakening the realisation of genuine interdisciplinarity. The team addressed this issue through extended initial conversations, collaborative writing processes, and – throughout the project duration – by defining a clear scope and specific outputs for every meeting. Some of the researchers experienced difficulties relating to knowledge outside their own areas of expertise. For example, discussions of technical aspects of energy generation, transmission, storage, and distribution were not always accessible to all team members, and these provoked interesting situations with translation of concepts necessary not only in a disciplinary sense but across languages. The linguistic aspect of the project was indeed an additional communication challenge, but led to engaging and positive outcomes. The experience of working with communities and other stakeholders in this study included using not only English and Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) but local languages (specifically, Sundanese), spoken by one or two of the researchers, but not all. At the same time, and working across these different linguistic contexts, the focus of the research was also on finding or constructing a common language between the research team and community members. Knowledge and expertise in local languages and culture were critical to identifying problems and proposing the most appropriate and practicable approaches to data collection, with the forging of common

4.3. Legitimacy Legitimacy is a multidimensional issue. Questions of project legitimacy can also arise when the goal or the objective of the study is questioned by stakeholders or participants in field-based data collection 6

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

[61,62]. If interviews are conducted too instrumentally – as a means to a specific end, rather than freely, or in an exploratory manner – respondents are likely to question the intentions of the researchers, and participate less authentically, if at all [61]. Different disciplines may demand potentially conflicting approaches. We determined to work not as separate disciplinary experts (in a multi- or interdisciplinary manner), but as a cohesive team practising sustainability science. Disciplinary perspectives could therefore be harnessed and contribute without dominating. One specific challenge was to avoid ‘standardising’ outputs or solutions by being trapped in the idea of being considerate to all expertise, thereby unconsciously restricting innovative analysis or insights. It was necessary and important to balance asymmetrical inputs to the research design, data-gathering, and writing processes. Australian academics can have more immediate access to databases and professional performance indicators that demand greater quantities of academic writing and publication, whereas Indonesian academics can have restricted journal access, higher teaching loads, and more extensive responsibilities with government agencies. Support for this project was in part premised on bilateral efforts to strengthen collaboration with these kinds of factors in mind (cf. [63]). There were unavoidable dilemmas between the anthropologist’s ideal of getting to know respondents informally over several days (or even longer) before approaching the serious research themes, and the social survey approach that seeks to cover as much ground with as many people and as quickly as possible. Taking the latter approach produced rich data from a variety of respondents, but the rapid and directed activities inevitably compromised the accuracy, honesty, and/ or interpretations of some responses. The rapid sessions with multiple groups enabled the researchers to observe a good variety of settings, but could not hope to achieve the systematic deep immersion and participant-observation forged in one or a small number of settings over a longer period. Local communities often place a premium on interpersonal relationships, and for researcher-participant relations over the longer term spending non-research directed, informal time together arguably has high value. Different disciplines have particular protocols. Transdisciplinary teamwork demands flexibility of attitude and adaptive capacity. The team worked together to put these depth and breadth tensions to best use. Leadership – meaning constructive guidance, coordination, and integration of disciplinary perspectives and contributions, as well as practical and logistic details – played a central and critical role in the research process (cf. [64]). Identifying and bridging knowledge gaps among the researchers as well as anticipating and addressing potential social and cultural barriers were vital to the success of the research. The sustainability science approach that guided the research provided scope for discipline-specific approaches and inputs to become increasingly applied as the project progressed. The presence of space for exchange of views and knowledge among the researchers and non-academic stakeholders created opportunities to locate feasible and appropriate responses to problems. It is important to note that these leadership functions were shared between and demonstrated by all members of the team, and this contributed to internal acknowledgement of project legitimacy. Further, the research design resulted in various interwoven subprojects (and papers reporting these), and was considered a positive learning outcome by all members of the research team. At the time of writing this paper, following the completion of most of the active field research, it was felt that to strengthen the transdisciplinary process (in terms of inputs, discussion, and results), it would be beneficial to include an early phase wherein, in response to the project outline, each (academic) participant explains (in writing) their disciplinary approach, methods, and assumptions. This could be perhaps extended to non-academic participants in less formal ways, as an invitation to explain their own orientations and motivations.

4.4. Planning and time management Working as a group comprised of various backgrounds and professional commitments requires good planning and time management, and the differing durations of typical research phases between specific disciplines adds to this complexity. So too engaging with non-academic stakeholders demands flexibility and understanding of local context. The research team’s tightly formulated initial plan and timetable therefore shifted to accommodate these factors. Planning here refers to research preparation around the objectives, approach, and expected outcomes of the project. During this process, the research team were exposed to the transdisciplinary approach and considered the characteristics, challenges, and expected contributions of each disciplinarity approach. One challenge was largely external, in that the collaboration began quickly, amid team members’ many existing demands. While not atypical among academics and CSOs in the world of applied research, opportunities to sit together to discuss and share disciplinary expertise, orientations, and prospective inputs were constrained. This type of research process could benefit from maintaining regular meetings and deciding schedules in advance. That said, flexibility and adaptation are vital to successful long-term collaborations, and the team succeeded in maintaining communication and ensuring the continuation of the project. Given the exploratory nature of the project, detailed planning of field visits, clear division of responsibility from the beginning, and effective leadership were all valuable attributes. The transdisciplinary approach resulted in diverse discussions which afforded an enriched understanding of issues. At the same time, challenges were also unavoidable as the result of disciplinary differences. However, the team members had considered the probability of these conflicts during project planning. Instead of confrontation, the challenge was to ensure disciplinary representation when there was relatively weak or unclear correlation with the issues at hand. To manage this concern, the research team maintained an open and friendly environment during the project, and the team leader consistently encouraged the researchers to express their ideas and concerns during every discussion. When considering the design of a village micro-hydro facility, for instance, the utility of political science initially appeared limited, yet we discovered through this lens how the unique ‘Pro-Poor Public-Private Partnership’ had been developed to overcome regulatory barriers and harness international development finance [65]. 4.5. The role and impacts of social and technical disciplines The expertise brought to bear in the research project included anthropology, development studies, economics and strategic business management, engineering, planning, political science, and social-ecological systems science. These different perspectives were coordinated through the transdisciplinary framework discussed previously and shown in Fig. 1. Anthropology provided key insights to inform research planning and conduct. Anthropological approaches – despite limited time – helped the team to differentiate between respondents’ statements and actions (that is, placing observations in context), and to recognise our own biases and assumptions (in other words to reserve judgement and instead understand respondents’ comments as much as possible from their individual standpoints) (cf. [66]). The anthropological orientation of the study generated critical understandings of socio-cultural contexts, and helped to identify potential sensitivities or prohibitions and determine sensitive and appropriate research conduct. This orientation is aligned with the core sustainability science criterion of understanding stakeholders’ normative positions. Development studies is fundamentally interdisciplinary and, while sharing features with anthropology, tends to emphasise political science and economics [7]. Our project deployed this perspective to investigate political economy dimensions of the influences of renewable energy 7

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

4.6. Further reflections

and electricity on community progress, gender roles, power distribution, and sustainability goals more broadly. The project confirmed the strong relationship between energy and economic growth, as well as the impacts of development on environmental values. Economics and finance concepts facilitated identification of barriers to local economic growth and were integral to discussions with government officers, representatives of public utilities, and private sector practitioners [67]. At the same time, understanding community- and household-scale economic issues provided data that could be understood by these different actors across the research value chain. Finance is central to infrastructure and capacity building in remote locations, and funding institutions often see rural communities as “uninvestable” propositions – hence the importance of government intervention [68]. However, to supersede traditional models of development finance it is necessary to bring community and the private sector perspectives together to explore innovative approaches [68]. Strategic management offered insights as to how organisations operate according to internal resources and capabilities, and in relation to external insitutions, markets, and regulation. This perspective, in conjunction with economic analysis, was a way to understand community aspirations around livelihoods and perceived opportunities. Engineering knowledge enabled realistic appraisals of existing technical and geophysical conditions and potential energy supplies. Technical assessments and quantitative modelling and understanding of opportunities, options, and trade-offs allowed for informed discussions with energy utilities as well as local people. While integration of technical and technological knowledge is central to evaluations of energy supply and distribution options, the sustainability science method allows for disparate stakeholder groups to communicate effectively on technical and social realities [34]. The role of political science in the study was critical to identify the gaps between state and non-state perspectives, and locate specific clashes of interest between stakeholder groups within the context of national, regional, local, and community power structures and systems [69]. This perspective seeks potential solution pathways that might be feasible given the capacity of individuals and groups to compromise their interests for wider, beneficial outcomes [70,71]. While the boundaries between political science and its cognate disciplines were not always clear to all team members, the interview design categories and related activities using governance and political concepts produced important insights into the deeper research questions. A central concern in urban planning is the relationship between resource management and well-being [72]. Here we focused on the influence of electricity supply reliability on economic activities, including new businesses generation and expansion of existing small and medium enterprises. Urban planning is also concerned with electricity supply and demand as basic infrastructure, including volumes of electricity sources and power supplied, and how these can meet current and future daily use and economic generation demands. More specifically, this discipline expertise contributed insights regarding rural development plans of government agencies and the perceived roles of renewable energy within their planning approaches [9]. Most of the research team were not previously familiar with sustainability science as a body of literature or investigative approach. A productive outcome is that sustainability science principles and methods are now seen to play an important role in linking academic research with real-world problems, solutions, and the various sectoral stakeholders. This enabled otherwise disparate researchers and practitioners to work together to produce work that was greater than the sum of its parts (that is, transdisciplinarity). Sustainability science was embraced by the research team to identify and locate a variety of knowledge production and reproduction processes, to minimize the gap in perspectives and assumptions, and as a practical approach to improved policy-making and implementation for sustainability goals. The project demonstrated the utility of sustainability science as an integrative, inclusive approach to applied research.

The researchers in this project found working with other stakeholders to be intriguing and constructive. The collaborative research process fostered new learning and reflective practice that refreshed established expertise with alternative perspectives. The immersive transdisciplinary research methodology resulted in understanding of study contexts from the standpoint of primary actors, such as government and local communities [73]. This approach is in some respects contentious, as the research was effectively looking to identify conflicts of interest. The purpose of the study – to understand needs, aspirations and livelihood visions – entailed eliciting and clarifying a variety of narratives about core problems, as well as bridging the gap between the state perspective (expressed by policy-makers and government officers) and the non-state perspective (the views of community members and the private sector). Recognising conflicts of interest was central to mapping problems in the field, but challenging when answers were framed (or moderated) to create a good impression, save face, or avoid possible offense. The success of the research activities depended on locating common ground between the researchers and participants [77]. This related strongly to the points made previously about language and communication. In some study sites, suspicion and distrust, or unfounded expectations of the research project (e.g. that the researchers were there to deliver new funding, or even as agents of political or religious espionage) demanded revised or more flexible approaches and investigative methods. Experiences in both West Java and North Maluku demonstrated these characteristics. Building a common language and terminologies, and integrated research aims and approaches (mutually respectful if not always fully understood), is always a challenge across disciplines [47]. In our case, different approaches and understandings – even if as enacted rather than explicitly discussed – were not an impediment to academically structured and methodologically rigorous research. This may relate to relative proximity in areas of expertise (none of the team were at the extreme end of technical or humanities fields), the productively inclusive role of the sustainability science approach, a focus on action rather than reflection in the investigative process, and the positive team ‘chemistry’ combined with engaging field experiences. Other factors may also have contributed to the constructive and integrated research process. The combination of genders and local, national, and foreign interviewers seemed to work very well. Not only did we have negligible issues regarding territoriality, hierarchy and the like, but during the village visits and interviews the team tended to complement one another well, even seamlessly. For example, quite a lot of note-taking occurred, with one of the research assistants actively scribing but also occasionally contributing, while a more senior (Australian) academic asked most questions (in fluent Bahasa Indonesia) of individual community leaders. At a subtler level, the team seemed able to keep interviews on track without causing disruption, and to maintain a balance between direct solicitation of information and more personalised interviewer/respondent interactions. Gathering as a team following interviews and group discussions, to compare and collate notes and understandings, was both productive and agreeable. The ‘miscellaneous’ category added during the initial field work (to allow for life histories and other information not immediately relevant to the research questions) has proven very valuable in the various data-analysis and writing processes following the field research. A good variety and large volume of data resulted from the work, arguably a result of the diverse disciplinary backgrounds and research orientations. Individual strengths contributed to overall success of the team dynamic: one researcher’s unimposing nature and keen eye for business dimensions; another’s interest in local culture, power and history, in line with her deep knowledge of national and international affairs; the 8

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

first author’s inclusive leadership, oversight of the sustainability science approach, and ability to keep field work activities focused; the diligence and intellectual engagement of the research assistants (as noted previously, both with Master’s degrees and very much contributors to the team); language skills and cultural expertise, and the ability to ensure that deep though targeted ethnographic considerations, and those of the intergovernmental funding organisation, were never far from proceedings; and the logistical and networking support of the CSO partners, without undue imposition of their own views. All members of the team contributed at various points to ensure effective data collection and a general air of goodwill. Underpinning this was the team’s collective sense of commitment to positive longterm outcomes for both local communities and bilateral research relations. Perhaps the most fundamental and important characteristics of the collaborative project in terms of team interactions (with each other and with all participants) were respect, openness, a willingness to contribute, and lightheartedness as well as humour. Laughter was found on occasion to be a critical ingredient of successful engagement.

ways as needed. 5 Respect It is critical to respect different worldviews, cultural values, and areas of expertise. This is fundamental to successful and authentic transdisciplinarity. 6 Lightheartedness and humour A lighthearted approach to engagement facilitates cross-cultural relations and team dynamics. Laughter can also be a powerful and effective tool for cross-cultural engagement and collaborative work. Use it well. Application of these six principles in transdisciplinary research initiatives will support more effective and coherent processes and outcomes, addressing the inherent challenges of method in energy-oriented social science. The research project found that health, education, and livelihood concerns are central for communities, while economic development is for government authorities. These different agendas are not always effectively aligned. Energy provision has often been undertaken to meet government economic priorities rather than local needs, and delivered without associated capacity building or synergistic livelihood development. In other words, remote community electrification often results in households having lighting at night and perhaps television, but is generally not focused on building local capabilities such as food processing or manufacturing. More enduring and sustainable outcomes would be realised if this focus were to be shifted. Electrification should guarantee the availability of reliable power generation at affordable prices, especially in rural and remote areas [10], and the availability of reliable and affordable electricity underpins livelihoods, but local energy infrastructure requires both knowledge and competence for proper use and ongoing management. Electrification initiatives should therefore focus not only on technical aspects of availability and access, but also on community capacity to maintain the technology. Local energy provision designed with communities to meet their unique circumstances, needs, and hopes for the future – in conjunction with initiatives to build local technical management and repair capabilities – would result in far more enduring and appropriate energy supply [74]. The study also identified specific knowledge gaps, and here we propose a number of empirical and methodological future research priorities. From an empirical perspective, clarifying the perspectives of policy makers and private sector actors on alternative (renewable) energy sources will support greater understanding between stakeholder groups and facilitate the advancement of specific, practical investment and development initiatives. This is important in rural and remote contexts in particular, given the economic, financial, and logistical challenges faced by communities in such locations. Further, appropriate financial mechanisms for small-scale renewable energy projects should be investigated within the wider contexts of climate and development finance instruments. This research should examine financial models to support community ownership and operation of energy resources. Improving knowledge in this area can contribute to broader models of community development, pursuing empowerment at local scales rather than maintaining a dependence on government or aid agencies [5,74]. Methodological research is also needed. Transdisciplinary methods will always be specific to the contexts of people and place involved, however there is a need for generic – or ‘template’ – processes that integrate community-level social and cultural realities and needs with national development priorities and international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Innovations in governing smallscale renewable energy projects will involve different levels of government, commercial interests, financial institutions, the research

5. Conclusions Issues of language and communication, methods of knowledge production, transdisciplinary processes, legitimacy concerns, and planning and time management considerations, were central to the social research in this study. Reflecting on the team’s transdisciplinary approach, and on the methodological challenges and their solutions guided by the theme of this Special Issue, we believe the discussion above provides lessons learned that can be of broad utility to academics, energy professionals, and communities. The sustainability science approach employed, and specific team dynamics and field situations discussed, should resonate with diverse stakeholder efforts on common goals around the implementation of renewable energy to enhance community development and at the same time contribute toward mitigating climate change. The insights we have gained through this project suggest six methodological principles that can facilitate effective, useful, and positive transdisciplinary research. 1 Preparation Researchers should take time before commencing data collection to establish agreed principles and processes of collaboration, to ensure ethical practices are considered and reviewed, and to progress logistics as far as possible. 2 Common understandings Teams should develop a common language and agreed research methods incorporating understanding of each other’s disciplinary perspectives, concepts, and tools. The perspectives and interests of nonacademic team members should have equal weight in this jointly constructed understanding. 3 Flexibility Applied research – particularly in transdisciplinary and development contexts – is subject to uncertainty and abrupt changes in circumstances. Teams should expect to adapt to dynamic conditions and unexpected events, responding as best as possible to negative changes, and seizing opportunities as they arise. 4 Shared responsibility Effective leadership in transdisciplinary research is a collaborative endeavour. Team members need to offer and accept responsibility for different aspects of a project, and be prepared to offer support in other 9

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

sector, non-governmental organisations, and local communities – all of these stakeholder groups have different values, drivers, constraints, resources, expectations, and potential contributions. A collaboratively developed template process that acknowledged and explored these would expedite sustainable community-level renewable energy, and accelerate the fulfilment of national electricity targets and international sustainability objectives. Dynamic tensions often exist between community needs, commercial realities, and political agendas; integrative transdisciplinary research and engagement processes are necessary to understand these, and support effective outcomes that maximize benefits and equity for all stakeholders. A further methodological research priority relates to the application of transdisciplinarity within sustainability science. As discussed in Section 2, sustainability science will benefit from greater articulation of integrated theoretical perspectives. Transdisciplinary research provides important insights into the synergies and conflicts between different disciplinary perspectives and concepts – scholars can offer valuable contributions to sustainability science by explicitly designing research processes to investigate how disparate theories interact, and developing novel integrations that support collaborative work. The research project has been highly productive in several ways. First, research outputs include multiple scientific papers in preparation, exploring techno-economic opportunities and pathways for community renewable energy, industry perspectives, and methodological approaches (this paper included). In addition, the research has contributed to comparative studies on epistemological questions (Sarrica et al., this issue). Second, the project has achieved impact through video pieces and online commentaries. Importantly, this impact has been evident in acknowledgement of the team’s subject knowledge and transdisciplinary expertise by Australian and Indonesian government agencies, and private sector organisations. One of the most important outcomes of the project was the level of engagement, which motivated commitments to continue the process into the future, with development of further integrated research and development activities to implement new approaches based on the findings of this study. Engagement based on transdisciplinary principles and perspectives provides many opportunities to develop problem-solving oriented approaches. The process also provides an opportunity to identify and clarify in practice the strengths and limitations of each discipline. Genuine sustainability science – and transdisciplinary research more generally – requires continuous and long-term engagement, and ongoing collaboration is arguably essential in order to contribute to high impact societal outcomes. A simple and important extraacademic action is to disseminate the results of the study to all stakeholders involved in the research. This knowledge dissemination should contribute to community empowerment, research legitimacy, and – ideally – positive institutional change. Clean, reliable, and affordable energy is critical to sustainable futures for all people, including remote and rural communities in developing countries. Social science is vital to ensure the most effective and equitable energy provision outcomes in these contexts. While inter- and transdisciplinary research processes are challenging and difficult, they are crucial to the realisation of these sustainability goals. The insights presented in this paper should contribute to the ongoing work of articulating and building these methods, understandings, and capabilities, all of which are important to the task of creating more sustainable futures.

References [1] R.B. Alley, J. Marotzke, W.D. Nordhaus, J.T. Overpeck, D.M. Peteet, R.A. Pielke, P.B. Rhines, T.F. Stocker, et al., Abrupt climate change, Science 299 (2003) 2005–2010. [2] C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2014). [3] B.K. Sovacool, D.J. Hess, Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change, Soc. Stud. Sci. 47 (2017) 703–750, https://doi.org/10. 1177/0306312717709363. [4] V. Castán Broto, L. Baker, Spatial adventures in energy studies: an introduction to the special issue, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36 (2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2017.11.002. [5] C. Harrison, J. Popke, Geographies of renewable energy transition in the Caribbean: reshaping the island energy metabolism, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36 (2018) 165–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.008. [6] J. Smith, M.M. High, Exploring the anthropology of energy: ethnography, energy and ethics, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30 (2017) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss. 2017.06.027. [7] M. Edelman, A. Haugerud (Eds.), The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: from Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism, Blackwell, Oxford, 2005. [8] G. Frigo, Energy ethics, homogenization, and hegemony: a reflection on the traditional energy paradigm, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30 (2017) 7–17, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss.2017.06.030. [9] M. Herington, E. Van de Fliert, S. Smart, C. Greig, P. Lant, Rural energy planning remains out-of-step with contemporary paradigms of energy access and development, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 1412 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2016.09.103. [10] M. Boedoyo, A. Sugiyono, Decentralized power generation in Indonesia: current issues and prospects, Asia-Pac. Tech Monit. 27 (2010) 31–36. [11] Cherp, et al., Global energy security under different climate policies, GDP growth rates, and fossil resources availabilities, J. Clim. Change 136 (2016) 83–94. [12] Shaiddusaman, et al., Reassessment of energy and GDP relationship: the case of Australia, J. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16 (2014) 323–344. [13] D.W. Cash, W.N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Oritchard, O. Young, Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world, Ecol. Soc. 11 (2) (2006). [14] A. Hiendro, et al., Techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic/wind hybrid system for onshore/remote area in Indonesia, Energy 59 (2013) 652–657. [15] N. Blum, R. Wakeling, T. Schmidt, Rural electrification through village grids—assessing the cost competitiveness of isolated renewable energy technologies in Indonesia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22 (2013) 482–496. [16] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Peraturan Menteri Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia (2016) Law 38/2016, Available at (2016) http:// jdih.esdm.go.id/peraturan/Permen%20ESDM%20No.%2038%20Tahun%202016. pdf. [17] K. Araújo, The emerging field of energy transitions: progress, challenges, and opportunities, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 112–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss. 2014.03.002. [18] M.C. Ricklefs, A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1200, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2008. [19] DJK ESDM, Statistik Ketenagalistrikan 2016 [Electricity Statistic Report 2016], Retrieved from Jakarta, Indonesia: (2017) http://www.djk.esdm.go.id/pdf/Buku %20Statistik%20Ketenagalistrikan/Statistik%20Ketenagalistrikan%20T.A. %202017.pdf. [20] B.D. Lewis, Urbanization and economic growth in Indonesia: good news, bad news and (possible) local government mitigation, Reg. Stud. 48 (2014) 192–207, https:// doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748980. [21] World Bank, The Indonesia Urban Story, Jakarta, Indonesia [online] Available at: (2016) http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/45281465807212968/IDN-URBANENGLISH.pdf. [22] B.H. Wibisono, The slow and chaotic cities of Indonesia: a study of urban morphology, crowding and inefficiencies in a developing country, Spaces Flows: An Int. J. Urban Extra Urban Stud. 1 (2011) 35–48. [23] A. Benino Indra, Livelihood change as impact of rural-urban transformation in Sleman Regency, J. Wil. Dan Lingkung. 2 (2014) 209–220, https://doi.org/10. 14710/jwl.2.3.209-220. [24] J. Day, P. Ellis, Urbanization for everyone: benefits of urbanization in Indonesia’s rural regions, J. Urban Plann. Dev. 140 (2014) 04014006. [25] ADB, Achieving Universal Electricity Access in Indonesia, Available at: Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2016https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ publication/182314/achieving-electricity-access-ino.pdf. [26] P. Blechinger, et al., Global analysis of the techno-economic potential of renewable energy hybrid systems on small islands, Energy Policy 98 (2016) 674–687. [27] H. Outhred, M. Retnanestri, Insights from the experience with solar photovoltaic systems in Australia and Indonesia, Energy Procedia 65 (2015) 121–130. [28] M. Richter, P. Semedi, A. Liebman, N. Oktaby, K. Satya, Notes on the anthropology of electricity in context of remote-area electrification projects in Indonesia and other countries, in: S.A. Purwanto (Ed.), Post-Reformasi Indonesia: the Challenges of Social Inequalities and Inclusion: The 6th International Symposium of Journal Antropologi Indonesia, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, 25-28 July 2016,

Aknowledgments We are grateful to the Australia-Indonesia Centre for its support of this research through funding as a Tactical Research Project in the AIC Energy Cluster.

10

Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Thomas et al.

[29] [30] [31] [32]

[33]

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

[40] [41] [42] [43]

[44]

[45] [46]

[47]

[48]

[49] [50] [51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55] A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, London, UK, 1998. [56] J. Ritchie, J. Lewis (Eds.), The Foundations of Qualitative Research First, SAGE Publications, London, UK, 2003. [57] M.E. Porter, The competitive advantage of nations, Harv. Bus. Rev. 68 (1990) 73–93. [58] M.E. Porter, The economic performance of regions, Reg. Stud. 37 (2003) 549–578. [59] J. Vanek, M.A. Chen, F. Carré, J. Heintz, R. Hussmanns, Statistics on the informal economy: definitions, regional estimates and challenges, Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) Working Paper (Statistics), 2, (2014). [60] M.F. Rola-Rubzen, J. Burgess (Eds.), Human Development and Capacity Building: Asia Pacific Trends, Challenges and Prospects for the Future, Routledge, 2016. [61] S. Bernstein, Legitimacy in global environmental governance, J. Int. Law Int. Relat. 1 (2004) 139–166. [62] F. Biermann, A. Gupta, Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework, Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011) 1856–1864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.04.008. [63] Universities Australia, Final Outcomes Report on the Indonesia – Australia Higher Education Forum, RISTEKDIKTI, Jakarta, 2015. [64] S. Meijerink, S. Stiller, What kind of leadership do we need for climate adaptation? A framework for analyzing leadership objectives, functions, and tasks in climate change adaptation, Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 31 (2013) 240–256. [65] H.I. Rambitan, F. Tumiwa, Cinta Mekar Micro-Hydro Power Plant (n.d) Available at, Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR), 2018, http://www. bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Indonesia+Case +Studies.pdf. [66] C.A. Gregory, J.C. Altman, Observing the Economy, Routledge, London, 1989. [67] R. Camagni, Regional competitiveness: towards a concept of territorial capital, Seminal Studies in Regional and Urban Economics, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 115–131. [68] B. Santoso, A.K.M. Meera, Indonesian community mobile financial inclusion, Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 4 (2015) 223. [69] R.D. Putnam, Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two level games, Int. Organ. 42 (1988) 427–460. [70] H.S. Nordholt, G. Van Klinken, Renegotiating Boundaries: Local Politics in PostSoeharto Indonesia, KILTV Press, Leiden, 2007. [71] B. Kalir, M. Sur, Transnational Flows and Permissive Polities: Ethnographies of Human Mobilities in Asia, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2012. [72] C.M. Agudelo-Vera, A.R. Mels, K.J. Keesman, H.H. Rijnaarts, Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning, J. Environ. Manage. 10 (2011) 2295. [73] R. Seidl, F.S. Brand, M. Stauffacher, P. Krütli, Q.B. Le, A. Spörri, et al., Science with society in the anthropocene, Ambio: J. Hum. Environ. 42 (2013) 5–12, https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-012-0363-5. [74] H. Ahlborg, M. Sjöstedt, Small-scale hydropower in Africa: socio-technical designs for renewable energy in Tanzanian villages, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 5 (2015) 20–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.017. [75] M. Bazilian, S. Nakhooda, T. Van de Graaf, Energy governance and poverty, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 217–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.006. [76] V.C. Broto, L. Stevens, E. Ackom, J. Tomei, P. Parikh, I. Bisaga, et al., A research agenda for a people-centred approach to energy access in the urbanizing global south, Nat. Energy 2 (2017) 776–779, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-0170007-x. [77] K.S. Cheruvelil, P.A. Soranno, K.C. Weathers, P.C. Hanson, S.J. Goring, C.T. Filstrup, E.K. Read, Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills, Front. Ecol. Environ. 12 (2014) 31–38, https://doi.org/10.1890/130001. [78] R. Hirsch, C. Jones, History’s contributions to energy research and policy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 106–111. [79] M. Retnanestri, H. Outhred, Acculturation of renewable energy technology into remote communities: lessons from Dobrov, Bourdieu, and Rogers and an Indonesian case study, Energy Sustain. Soc. 3 (2013) 9, https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-05673-9. [80] C. Rudolph, Sovereignty and territorial borders in a global age, Int. Stud. Rev. 7 (2005) 1–20.

Proceedings, International Symposium of Journal Antropologi Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia, 25–28 July, 2016, pp. 217–222. T. Murray Li, The Will to Improve: Governmentaility, Development, and the Practice of Politics, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C, 2007. D. Spreng, Transdisciplinary energy research – reflecting the context, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 65–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005. M.A. Max-Neef, Foundations of transdisciplinarity, Ecol. Econ. 53 (2005) 5–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014. D.J. Abson, J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, C.D. Ives, N.W. Jager, D.J. Lang, Leverage points for sustainability transformation, Ambio 46 (2017) 30–39. P. Brandt, A. Ernst, F. Gralla, C. Luederitz, D.J. Lang, J. Newig, F. Reinert, D.J. Abson, H. von Wehrden, A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04. 008. D. Lang, et al., Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges, Sustain. Sci. 7 (2012) 25–43. R.W. Kates, W.C. Clark, R. Corell, et al., Sustainability science, Science 292 (2001) 641–642, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386. R.W. Kates, What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (2011) 19449–19450, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116097108. L.M.A. Bettencourt, J. Kaur, The evolution and structure of sustainability science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (2011) 19540–19545. T. Seager, The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability, Bus. Strateg. Environ. 17 (2008) 444–452. B.L. Turner, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, et al., A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100 (2003) 8074–8079, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100. S.O. Funtowicz, J.R. Ravetz, The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science, Ecol. Econ. 10 (1994) 197–207. A. Müller, A flower in full blossom?: Ecological economics at the crossroads between normal and post-normal science, Ecol. Econ. 45 (2003) 19–27. J. Tata, National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives, Cross Cult. Manag. 22 (2015) 278–296. P. Järvensivu, A post-fossil fuel transition experiment: exploring cultural dimensions from a practice-theoretical perspective, J. Clean. Prod. 169 (2017) 143–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.154. J. Mercer, I. Kelman, L. Taranis, S. Suchet-Pearson, Framework for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction, Disasters 34 (1) (2009) 214–239, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01126.x. R. Tennyson, The Partnering Toolbook, The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), 2003. A. Wiek, L. Withycombe, C.L. Redman, Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development, Sustain. Sci. 6 (2011) 203–218. T.R. Miller, A. Wiek, D. Sarewitz, J. Robinson, L. Olsson, D. Kriebel, D. Loorbach, The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda, Sustain. Sci. 9 (2014) 239–246. A. Jerneck, L. Olsson, B. Ness, S. Anderberg, M. Baier, E. Clark, et al., Structuring sustainability science, Sustain. Sci. 6 (2010) 69–82, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-010-0117-x. L. Meuleman, Cultural diversity and sustainability metagovernance, Transgovernance, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 37–81. S. Dovers, Clarifying the imperative of integration research for sustainable environmental management, J. Res. Pract. 1 (2005) 2. S. Schaltegger, M. Beckmann, E.G. Hansen, Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: mapping the field, Bus. Strateg. Environ. 22 (2013) 219–229, https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.1772. K. Lee, Understandings of global health governance: the contested landscape, Global Health Governance vol. 366, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 2009, pp. 27–41, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230249486_2. A. Talberg, P. Christoff, S. Thomas, D. Karoly, Geoengineering governance-by-default: an earth system governance perspective, Int. Environ. Agreem.: Polit. Law Econ. 54 (2017) 421, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9374-9. N. Gunningham, Confronting the challenge of energy governance, Transnatl. Environ. Law 1 (2012) 119–135, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102511000124.

11