@misc{SareenThomsonTiradoHerreroetal., author = {Sareen, Siddharth and Thomson, Harriet and Tirado-Herrero, Sergio and Gouveia, Jo{\~a}o Pedro and Lippert, Ingmar and Lis, Aleksandra}, title = {European energy poverty metrics: Scales, prospects and limits}, series = {Global Transitions}, volume = {2}, journal = {Global Transitions}, issn = {2589-7918}, doi = {10.1016/j.glt.2020.01.003}, pages = {26 -- 36}, abstract = {Energy poverty, a condition whereby people cannot secure adequate home energy services, is gaining prominence in public discourse and on political and policy agendas. As its measurement is operationalised, metrical developments are being socially shaped. A European Union mandate for biennial reporting on energy poverty presents an opportunity to institutionalise new metrics and thus privilege certain measurements as standards. While combining indicators at multiple scales is desirable to measure multi-dimensional aspects, it entails challenges such as database availability, coverage and limited disaggregated resolution. This article converges scholarship on metrics - which problematises the act of measurement - and on energy poverty - which apprehends socio-political and techno-economic particulars. Scholarship on metrics suggests that any basket of indicators risks silencing significant but hard to measure aspects, or unwarrantedly privileging others. State-of-the-art energy poverty scholarship calls for indicators that represent contextualised energy use issues, including energy access and quality, expenditure in relation to income, built environment related aspects and thermal comfort levels, while retaining simplicity and comparability for policy traction. We frame energy poverty metrology as the socially shaped measurement of a varied, multi-dimensional phenomenon within historically bureaucratic and publicly distant energy sectors, and assess the risks and opportunities that must be negotiated. To generate actionable knowledge, we propose an analytical framework with five dimensions of energy poverty metrology, and illustrate it using multi-scalar cases from three European countries. Dimensions include historical trajectories, data flattening, contextualised identification, new representation and policy uptake. We argue that the measurement of energy poverty must be informed by the politics of data and scale in order to institutionalise emerging metrics, while safeguarding against their co-optation for purposes other than the deep and rapid alleviation of energy poverty. This 'dimensioned' understanding of metrology can provide leverage to push for decisive action to address the structural underpinnings of domestic energy deprivation.}, language = {en} } @incollection{RaaschLippert, author = {Raasch, Josefine and Lippert, Ingmar}, title = {Verran, Helen}, series = {The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Methods}, booktitle = {The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Methods}, editor = {Atkinson, Paul and Delamont, Sara and Cernat, Alexandru and Sakshaug, Joseph W. and Williams, Richard A.}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, address = {Los Angeles}, doi = {10/fft6}, abstract = {Helen Verran is a postcolonial historian and philosopher of science at Charles Darwin University in Australia. Her contributions, addressing concepts' performances and effects, are groundbreaking in the study of generalising logics, difference, and ontological politics. This analysis of how concepts get enacted responds to key challenges of social sciences and humanities inquiry.Verran's 'relational empiricism' analyses the many and various practices of conceptualising and their effects. Making relations is a central practice in conceptualising and, thus, part of her analysis. Her approach is relational in that the concepts she analyses are understood as doing something: They relate and separate entities. It is empirical as Verran analyses embodied experiences of worlds/worldings. Central in relational empiricism is the inquiry into tensions and overlaps between concepts as doing differences. Verran is best known for her ethnographic work, particularly on the concept of 'number' (Lippert \& Verran, 2018; Verran, 2001).For Verran, concepts are not merely an intellectual category. Rather, concepts are also embodied and lived, collectively shared and performed in 'repeated routine performances' (Verran, 2001, p. 157). In Verran's material-semiotic analysis, concepts have a realness and are performed or reperformed in situations. This renders concepts as particular in time and place.A world shaped by particular and situated concepts, then, is a world of differences. These differences are not threatening but workable, albeit amid generative dissensus. This take allows possibilities for creating 'futures that are different from the past' (Verran, 2001, p. 35). Verran has developed analytical tools for recognising and doing difference together, for ongoing relating and going-on with others.Before this entry presents three Verranian tools, it locates Verran's work and influences. Then, it introduces and illustrates Verran's key method—storytelling—and presents central tools. The final section addresses politics in Verran's work.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Lippert, author = {Lippert, Ingmar}, title = {In, with and of STS}, series = {Wie forschen mit den "science and technology studies"? : interdisziplin{\"a}re Perspektiven}, booktitle = {Wie forschen mit den "science and technology studies"? : interdisziplin{\"a}re Perspektiven}, editor = {Wiedmann, Astrid and Wagenknecht, Katherin and Goll, Philipp and Wagenknecht, Andreas}, publisher = {Transcript}, address = {Bielefeld}, isbn = {978-3-8376-4379-4}, doi = {10/fdws}, pages = {301 -- 318}, abstract = {How do we narrate about how we 'use' STS for social scientific research? How do we study STS research practices? Do all research practices that involve STS concepts contribute to STS? This text constitutes the afterword to an edited volume that contributes to providing answers in the borderlands of these questions. The af­terword problematises how we perform reflexivity, how we are (not) analysing STS's own research practices, and how we tell simultaneous stories of what STS as a field is or might be. With this problematisation, this essay argues for a praxeography of STS, involving methodographic, conceptographic and cartographic analyses.}, language = {en} }