From 'Does it Work?' to 'How is it Lived?': Reframing My PhD on Energy Feedback

I arrived at the Housing Studies Association (HSA) Annual Conference 2025 at a vulnerable, yet exciting, point in my PhD: the very beginning of data collection for my exploratory phase. My briefcase wasn't full of definitive answers, but of tentative interview transcripts, early survey responses, and a central, nagging question. Most of the literature framed Real-Time Energy Feedback (RTEF) as a tool for saving energy, a behavioural lever. But my first conversations with households suggested something far more interesting was happening. They weren't just consuming less; they were learning, adapting, and sometimes struggling to integrate this technology into the flow of home life. I went to the HSA conference to present this preliminary analysis, to see if my hunch that we needed to look beyond energy savings held any water.

Presenting exploratory work is daunting. You’re essentially showing your workings, knowing they’re incomplete. You’re vulnerable to the question, "Yes, but what does it mean?" However, the HSA conference provided the perfect intellectual scaffolding for my nascent ideas. The feedback I received was transformative. It wasn't just polite; it was deeply constructive. Seasoned academics and fellow PhD students engaged with my struggle to frame my observations, pushing me beyond the simple question of "does it work?".

One conversation was pivotal. A professor challenged my initial framing, which leaned on theories of behaviour change. They pointed me towards Actor-Network Theory (ANT), suggesting I think of the feedback display not as a tool, but as an actor or mediator in a network of people, solar panels, appliances, and weather. This single suggestion was a lightbulb moment. It gave me a language for what I was seeing: households weren't just responding to information; they were negotiating with it. Another expert's question about the differences I was seeing between homeowners and social housing tenants sharpened my focus on equity, a theme that would become salient.

Energised and reoriented, I returned to my data. The conference discussions became the analytical backbone of the paper I was beginning to draft. The concept of 'mediation' helped me make sense of how RTEF connected (or failed to connect) the practicalities of laundry routines with the abstract goal of using self-produced solar energy. The questions about equity pushed me to systematically analyse the disparities between the 'Enthusiasts' optimising their systems and the 'Passive Adopters' for whom the display was a confusing, imposed object. The paper evolved from a descriptive account into a theoretically grounded argument: that RTEF is best understood not as a tool for saving energy, but as a relational device that shapes how households live with energy, with effects that are uneven and often constrained by material conditions like housing quality and tenure.

That paper, "From Novelty to Mediation: Exploring the Impact of Real-Time Energy Feedback in Energy-Producing Households," was recently accepted for publication in a UK journal special issue. The core argument, that RTEF functions as a sociotechnical mediator within domestic networks, enabling situated forms of agency while also exposing the limits imposed by infrastructure and inequality, was in part forged in the discussions at the HSA conference. The feedback I received didn't just improve my writing; it fundamentally reshaped my analytical lens.

For me, the 2025 conference was a masterclass in the value of academic community. It demonstrated that even at the earliest stages, sharing tentative work isn't about having all the answers; it's about asking the right questions in the right room. It showed me that an exploratory phase isn't something to be hidden until it's perfect, but a crucial part of the research process that benefits immensely from collective wisdom. The HSA provided the space to move my thinking from a narrow focus on outcomes to a richer understanding of lived experience.

So, to any early-career researcher or PhD student debating whether to submit an abstract for the next HSA conference, my advice is simple: do it. Bring your half-formed ideas, your confusing data, and your big questions. Be ready to listen and to have your assumptions challenged. You might just leave not only with new ideas but with the theoretical toolkit for your next publication. I know I did.