Archival Research and Combined Insights between Historical Institutionalism & Institutional Works as Methodological Lense: Example of Reconstructing Thailand’s Energy Transition (2002–2012)
Keywords:
Archival Research, Energy Transition, Historical Institutionalism, Institutional Work, ProcessAbstract
Since social issues can be explored through various methodological lenses, each provides different insights into their evolution and persistence. Unconventionally, this article employs archival research — known for its robustness in tracing change and development over time — alongside theoretical perspectives from lock-in mechanisms and path disruption to explore Thailand’s energy transitions. By capitalizing on the synergy between theoretical insights and systematic procedures, this study puts forward a methodologically grounded account of institutional theory for unveiling the complex and enduring processes of energy transitions. In doing so, it approaches the question of how actors in Thailand’s energy sector have interacted over time in advancing renewable energy initiatives. As a series of events unfolded and data were coded from descriptive to pattern levels, three findings were derived from a reconstruction of historical narrative. However, these are intended to illustrate a methodological contribution, rather than to offer context-independent conclusions. First, while collaborative efforts among proponents were forged to disrupt institutional carbon lock-in, internal competition also emerged as actors sought to lead and benefit from the transition. This inevitably resulted in recurring tensions, compounded by misalignment between broader socio-economic policies and renewable energy initiatives. Second, political rhetoric and external pressure played crucial roles in negotiating those tensions and sustaining momentum. Third, a continuous [re-]configuration of the key involved parties was found to be indispensable for maintaining progress. This dynamism would likely to be overlooked if a transition were explored solely through a positivist paradigm. The paper encourages scholars to craft or re-design their methodologies in alignment with the evolving nature of social issues and theoretical perspectives.
References
ADB. (2019). Energy infrastructure development in Southeast Asia. Asian Development Bank.
Anderson, T., & Gadolin, C. (2020). Competing logics in the transition to low-carbon energy: A socio-technical perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101–113.
Ashworth, P., Pisarski, A., & Pearse, R. (2010). Public acceptance of energy technologies: The role of norms and values. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5745–5756.
Barroco, A. F., & Herrera, E. (2019). Financing renewable energy in developing countries: Barriers and solutions. Renewable Energy Review, 43, 765–788.
Batel, S. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of media constructions of rural opposition to renewable energy projects in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 567–585.
Beunen, R., & Patterson, J. J. (2019). Institutional work for sustainability: Understanding institutional dynamics and change. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(4), 227–238.
Bellos, I. (2018). Transformative power of regulatory reform in renewable energy transitions. Energy Regulation Quarterly, 17(3), 35–52.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
Bolton, R., Foxon, T. J., & Hall, S. (2016). Energy transitions in the UK: The role of institutional work. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 72–84.
Brown, A. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2012). The power of rhetoric in organizational change: Ethos, pathos, and logos in climate discourse. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 255–274.
Campbell, J. L. (2010). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton University Press.
Chang, H.-J. (2014). Economics: The user’s guide. Pelican Books.
Chiappinelli, O., & May, N. (2022). Time-inconsistent renewable energy policies: Challenges and solutions. Energy Policy, 156, 112–130.
Criscuo, G., & Mennon, R. (2015). Financing the renewable energy transition. Energy Economics, 48, 238–250.
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2011). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). SAGE.
Dragomir, C., Zhang, W., & Speed, M. (2023). Institutional theory and energy transition policies. Energy Research & Social Science, 90, 102743.
Fouquet, R., & Pearson, P. J. G. (2012). Past and prospective energy transitions: Insights from history. Energy Policy, 50, 1–7.
Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions and actors in shaping transitions. Research Policy, 45(7), 1291–1304.
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Response to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.
Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., McAnulla, F., Kerr, N., Sakai, P., & Hall, S. (2015). Accelerating low-carbon development in the world's cities. Global Environmental Change, 35, 1–10.
Grubler, A. (2012). Energy transitions research: Insights and recommendations. Energy Policy, 50, 1–12.
Guldi, J., & Armitage, D. (2014). The history manifesto. Cambridge University Press.
Hatani, F. (2016). Path-dependence in Japan’s energy policy. Energy Policy, 92, 272–283.
IEA. (2019). Tracking progress on renewable energy adoption. International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2020). World energy outlook 2020. International Energy Agency.
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Jacobson, M., & Graf, F. W. (2021). Analyzing conflicts in energy transitions. Sustainability, 13(2), 157–175.
Jehling, M., Rogge, K. S., & Ehrhart, K.-M. (2019). Auctions for renewable energy support: Lessons from Germany. Energy Policy, 134, 110961.
Kaminker, C., & Stewart, F. (2012). The role of institutional investors in financing clean energy. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance, and Private Pensions, 23.
KPMG. (2020). Shifting to alternative energy – The energy transformation. KPMG International.
Kucharski, J., & Unesaki, H. (2018). Energy transitions and sustainability: A comparative analysis of policy frameworks in Asia. Energy Policy, 123, 215–227.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). Sage Publications.
Leiren, M. D., & Reimer, I. (2018). Transitioning to auction-based renewable energy policies in Germany: A historical institutionalist perspective. Energy Policy, 121, 312–320.
Li, T., Liu, P., & Li, Z. (2020). Quantitative relationship between low-carbon pathways and system transition costs based on a multi-period and multi-regional energy infrastructure planning approach: A case study of China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 134, 110159.
Lockwood, M., et al. (2017). Historical institutionalism and energy transitions: Exploring the UK case. Energy Policy, 107, 76–85.
Lohr, H., & Zorn, S. (2022). Transition pathways in renewable energy: A focus on institutional work. Energy Policy, 165, 112–138.
London School of Economics and Political Science. (2016, February 2). Too much math, too little history: The problem of economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0necUnCA8w
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. L. (2014). Thinking through theory. W. W. Norton & Company.
Martin, J. L. (2017). Thinking through methods: A social science primer. University of Chicago Press.
McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 517(7533), 187–190.
Narvanen, E., Koivupuro, H., & Laitinen, S. (2021). Communicating sustainability: Discourse and institutional change. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 567–580.
Neji, A., & Namet, K. (2022). Sustainability pathways in energy transitions: A case study of renewable integration. Energy Policy, 150, 245–260.
North, D. C. (2011). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Pilpola, S., & Lund, P. D. (2018). Effect of major policy disruptions in energy system transition: Case Finland. Energy Policy, 116, 323–336.
Raghutla, C., et al. (2021). Financing renewable energy projects in emerging markets. Energy Economics, 96, 105234.
Roberts, C., & Geels, F. W. (2019). Conditions and dynamics of disruptive innovation: A socio-technical perspective on low carbon transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 106–119.
Rogge, K. S., & Dütschke, E. (2018). What makes them believe in the low-carbon energy transition? Exploring corporate perceptions of the credibility of climate policy mixes. Environmental Science & Policy, 87, 74–84.
Roy, B., & Schaffartzik, A. (2021). Talk renewable, walk coal: The paradox of India’s energy transition. Energy Policy, 151, 112108.
Sainati, T., Brookes, N., & Locatelli, G. (2020). Cost of capital in energy infrastructure investments. Energy Economics, 85, 104589.
Saraji, M. K., & Streimikiene, D. (2023). Challenges to the low carbon energy transition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101163.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Pearson.
Schinko, T., & Komendantova, N. (2016). De-risking investment into concentrated solar power in North Africa: Impacts on the costs of electricity generation. Renewable Energy, 92, 262–272.
Sirisoontorn, S., & Koomsup, P. (2017). Barriers to renewable energy development in Thailand. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 202–210.
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research. SAGE.
Smil, V. (2017). Energy and civilization: A history. MIT Press.
Smith, M. E., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research. SAGE.
Sonday, A., Ramugondo, E., & Kathard, H. (2020). Case study and narrative inquiry as merged methodologies: A critical narrative perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–10.
Sovacool, B. K., Martiskainen, M., Hook, A., & Baker, L. (2019). Decarbonization and its discontents: A critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions. Climatic Change, 155, 581–619.
Speed, M. (2016). The dynamics of institutional change in renewable energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 96–105.
Spijkerboer, R., Stegmaier, P., & Taanman, M. (2021). Institutional dynamics in energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, 102122.
Stern, P. C., & Cleveland, C. J. (2004). Energy transitions and social change. Energy Economics, 26, 189–213.
Tankha, S., Rapp, K., Blanco, M., & Sun, Y. (2010). Delivering renewable infrastructure projects: Challenges and innovative financing mechanisms. Renewable Energy, 45(3), 112–128.
TDRI Insight. (2018). Thailand’s energy transition: Challenges and opportunities. TDRI Policy Series, 15, 34–49.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Urban, F., & Nordensvard, J. (2018). Low carbon energy transitions in the Nordic countries: Evidence from the environmental Kuznets curve. Energies, 11, 2209.
William, H., & Sewell, J. R. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. University of Chicago Press.
Wu, X., Zhao, S., Shen, Y., Madani, H., & Chen, Y. (2020). A combined multi-level perspective and agent-based modeling in low-carbon transition analysis. Energies, 13, 5050.
Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & Yuan, J. (2020). Transition of China’s power sector consistent with Paris Agreement into 2050: Pathways and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, 110102.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Santi Jintamanaskoon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All published content in JRM is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
