Martin, R (2022) Energy housekeeping: Intersections of gender, domestic labour and technologies. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), pp. 554-569. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Emerging energy technologies and tools aim to enhance peoples' understanding and control over household energy. Yet, important questions are emerging about precisely whose understanding and control such technologies benefit, and how increasingly commonplace tools may shape the gendered division of domestic labour. This article explores how smart energy technologies, and in particular energy feedback, may reproduce or further entrench the unequal distribution of household labour between men and women. Theories of social practice are used to frame ethnographic research (semi-structured interviews, card game prompts and home tours) conducted with 24 Australian households using solar photovoltaics and batteries. Evidence is provided of men interpreting energy feedback for other household members, policing other householders' energy-using practices and more broadly orchestrating patterns of energy consumption. Building on the concept of 'digital housekeeping', which refers to the gendered way in which domestic technologies are used and maintained, the paper suggests these practices constitute gendered forms of 'energy housekeeping'. The energy housekeeping concept provides a means of understanding how emerging energy technologies and tools intersect with issues of gender and domestic labour.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | digital housekeeping; domestic labour; energy consumption; gender; practice theory; smart technology |
| Index terms: | energy consumption, household, evidence, women, photovoltaic, social practice, energy technology, smart energy, interview, energy feedback, practice theory |
| Subjects: | sociology, demography, theoretical framing, social theory, energy systems, innovation and technology management, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here