One immediate problem I had with this article was the overly positivistic approach. They seem to have set up this pilot study as an experiment to test 4 propositions (or hypotheses). For them, the survey acted as a “test” of the respondent’s knowledge (the level of which, not the content, was the actual data) as much as it served as an elicitation device. And passing this test amounted to providing the “correct” answers to their questions. This marks a sternly etic approach to social science. In other words, they didn’t approach their survey or their respondents as potentially having valuable knowledge or insight into the energy system. Instead, the researchers already knew what is to be known about the energy system, what they did not know was the degree to which the public knew that system, and how in/correct this knowledge was.
This simply overlooks the potential for their respondents to provide valuable criticism of the energy system. They purport to be studying “energy attitudes” but lack the sort of hermeneutic approach that is necessary for getting at such an object of inquiry. Indeed, their only hesitance in their conclusions stems from the fact that this was only a “pilot study.” Thus, more data and a larger, more diverse sample would be grounds for improvement. By contrast, I would head the other direction (like we are doing), taking a subset of those surveyed and conducting more in-depth interviews.
Take the following excerpt:
“Although it seems logical that consumers that are better informed about the need for an energy transition and the technicalities of energy supply and distribution would be more willing to engage in energy saving practices or alter their behavior, that finding is not supported by our sample of survey respondents, who, despite having a preponderance of educated people living near the part of Denmark (Jutland) most populated with wind turbines, were unable to state even basic facts about the Danish energy system” (313).
Being educated, in the general sense, and living near turbines doesn’t necessarily mean they are necessarily better informed about climate change and the technicalities of energy. However, you would expect that they know the nuance of the experience of living in this type of energy system much better than whoever is writing the author’s energy textbooks or hosting their “renewable energy technology demonstrations.” Indeed, the fact that “repeated exposure to wind turbines can diminish acceptance” is a super interesting find. But the conclusion to be drawn is not that people should be kept in the dark!?!?! It simply begs the further research question “What are their reasons for disapproval, and what can we do to incorporate their feedback into a more accommodating energy system?”
