106
9.1 The Cross-CuTTing Dimensions Where
LegiTimaTion is PraCTiseD in eaCh Case
What can be learned from summarising and consolidating the practices of
legitimation encountered in the unpacking of five diverse energy transition
cases? This chapter employs an abductive reasoning approach. The practices of legitimation that constitute the empirically informed point of
departure in Chap. 2 are treated as an example of deductive reasoning
here: it is possible to categorise practices along four registers (discursive,
bureaucratic, technocratic and financial) that are overlapping (not mutually exclusive) and comprehensive (all practices of legitimation fit within
their remit). These practices move from the general to the specific. The
five cases that make up Chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 hold examples of inductive
reasoning. In each chapter, the author chooses a point of entry to offer a
fine-grained analysis of accountability relations within their case of energy
transition, moving from the specific to the general by means of analytical
abstraction. Part III acknowledges that these analyses are limited by
degrees of uncertainty—their knowledge base is necessarily incomplete. It
seeks a pragmatic approach to characterise and inform decision-making
despite uncertainty, and therefore applies abductive reasoning to settle
upon the likeliest possible explanation in any given case.
In short, this concluding part works towards ways to characterise energy
transitions as accountable to concerns of sustainability or not in disaggregated, case-specific instances of decision-making that affect decarbonisation and social equity enhancement outcomes. Accountability relations are
rarely fully legible since they comprise both formal and informal practices
of legitimation that require empirical study with varying data access, hence
any approach that analyses accountability must address uncertainty within
its design. An abductive approach to accountability analysis opens up for
empirical investigation, accommodates uncertainty, and retains focus on
practical applicability and real-world relevance.
Part III proceeds step-wise. This chapter articulates how practices of
legitimation along four registers (discursive, bureaucratic, technocratic
and financial) are present in each case to extents that differ based on
how each author’s choice of sector and focus modulates their relevance. It
summarises the wide range of ways in which these practices uphold and
challenge accountability crises in each energy transition case. Such juxtaposition and consolidation allow discernment of cross-cutting dimensions
along which practices of legitimation play out. Proceeding sequentially
S. SAREEN
9.1 The Cross-CuTTing Dimensions Where
LegiTimaTion is PraCTiseD in eaCh Case
What can be learned from summarising and consolidating the practices of
legitimation encountered in the unpacking of five diverse energy transition
cases? This chapter employs an abductive reasoning approach. The practices of legitimation that constitute the empirically informed point of
departure in Chap. 2 are treated as an example of deductive reasoning
here: it is possible to categorise practices along four registers (discursive,
bureaucratic, technocratic and financial) that are overlapping (not mutually exclusive) and comprehensive (all practices of legitimation fit within
their remit). These practices move from the general to the specific. The
five cases that make up Chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 hold examples of inductive
reasoning. In each chapter, the author chooses a point of entry to offer a
fine-grained analysis of accountability relations within their case of energy
transition, moving from the specific to the general by means of analytical
abstraction. Part III acknowledges that these analyses are limited by
degrees of uncertainty—their knowledge base is necessarily incomplete. It
seeks a pragmatic approach to characterise and inform decision-making
despite uncertainty, and therefore applies abductive reasoning to settle
upon the likeliest possible explanation in any given case.
In short, this concluding part works towards ways to characterise energy
transitions as accountable to concerns of sustainability or not in disaggregated, case-specific instances of decision-making that affect decarbonisation and social equity enhancement outcomes. Accountability relations are
rarely fully legible since they comprise both formal and informal practices
of legitimation that require empirical study with varying data access, hence
any approach that analyses accountability must address uncertainty within
its design. An abductive approach to accountability analysis opens up for
empirical investigation, accommodates uncertainty, and retains focus on
practical applicability and real-world relevance.
Part III proceeds step-wise. This chapter articulates how practices of
legitimation along four registers (discursive, bureaucratic, technocratic
and financial) are present in each case to extents that differ based on
how each author’s choice of sector and focus modulates their relevance. It
summarises the wide range of ways in which these practices uphold and
challenge accountability crises in each energy transition case. Such juxtaposition and consolidation allow discernment of cross-cutting dimensions
along which practices of legitimation play out. Proceeding sequentially
S. SAREEN