When the types do not make sense: Seven lessons to improve typology-building for energy transitions research

Abstract

The field of sustainability transitions studies is characterized by the proliferation of different typologies. However, many of these, including highly influential ones, have not been formulated according to any explicit criteria. This can be problematic because such typologies may be based on partially overlapping or redundant categories and systematically miss out on certain dimensions, without even being aware of this. As a result, even attempts to subject such typologies to systematic empirical testing can still remain biassed and therefore reproduce the problems of the initial conceptualization. To exemplify these issues, this paper conducts a literature review of typology-building practices in transitions studies and performs a formal analysis of three influential typologies related to intermediaries, energy justice, and power. Drawing on insights on typology formation from political science, the analysis focuses on whether the categories of each typology are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The notion of property space is then used to contrast the difference between the actual and logically implied scope of each typology. Based on the analyses, the paper offers seven lessons for improving typology-building in the study of energy and other transitions.