“Why can't we all get along?” A conceptual analysis and case study of contentious energy problems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Energy policy and research span multiple objectives, disciplines, methodologies, and data sets. This breadth of research results in conflicting analyses and proposals, which enable various parties to leverage these conflicts to further their vested interests. This paper explores these issues caused by differing research methodologies. It examines a recent proposal to search for common ground regarding contentious energy problems that emphasizes the use of different analytical frames as major sources of disagreement, and a case study regarding a dispute on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses of energy efficiency programs. Resolving differences among the research community and energy analysts requires a collaborative effort of painstaking research and debate. This paper articulates four policy implications. First, energy analysts should not be inexorably bound to their analytical frames. Second, analysts should not encroach on the role of policymakers by being asked to resolve questions that involve tradeoffs among fundamental values. Third, analysts have an important role helping to inform policymakers of the implications and limitations of various types of analyses of energy and environmental issues. Fourth, analysts need to develop a research program that is able to answer particular questions from multiple research frames in order to assess the robustness of their findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)711-716
Number of pages6
JournalEnergy Policy
Volume96
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

energy
methodology
energy policy
Energy policy
energy efficiency
environmental issue
research program
analysis
Energy efficiency
Costs
cost-benefit
conflict
policy
programme

Keywords

  • Cost benefit analysis
  • Energy analysis
  • Energy efficiency
  • Resolution of energy problems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Energy(all)
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

“Why can't we all get along?” A conceptual analysis and case study of contentious energy problems. / Felder, Frank.

In: Energy Policy, Vol. 96, 01.09.2016, p. 711-716.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9944140975e248e3a423af84ac250a10,
title = "“Why can't we all get along?” A conceptual analysis and case study of contentious energy problems",
abstract = "Energy policy and research span multiple objectives, disciplines, methodologies, and data sets. This breadth of research results in conflicting analyses and proposals, which enable various parties to leverage these conflicts to further their vested interests. This paper explores these issues caused by differing research methodologies. It examines a recent proposal to search for common ground regarding contentious energy problems that emphasizes the use of different analytical frames as major sources of disagreement, and a case study regarding a dispute on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses of energy efficiency programs. Resolving differences among the research community and energy analysts requires a collaborative effort of painstaking research and debate. This paper articulates four policy implications. First, energy analysts should not be inexorably bound to their analytical frames. Second, analysts should not encroach on the role of policymakers by being asked to resolve questions that involve tradeoffs among fundamental values. Third, analysts have an important role helping to inform policymakers of the implications and limitations of various types of analyses of energy and environmental issues. Fourth, analysts need to develop a research program that is able to answer particular questions from multiple research frames in order to assess the robustness of their findings.",
keywords = "Cost benefit analysis, Energy analysis, Energy efficiency, Resolution of energy problems",
author = "Frank Felder",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.038",
language = "English",
volume = "96",
pages = "711--716",
journal = "Energy Policy",
issn = "0301-4215",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - “Why can't we all get along?” A conceptual analysis and case study of contentious energy problems

AU - Felder, Frank

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Energy policy and research span multiple objectives, disciplines, methodologies, and data sets. This breadth of research results in conflicting analyses and proposals, which enable various parties to leverage these conflicts to further their vested interests. This paper explores these issues caused by differing research methodologies. It examines a recent proposal to search for common ground regarding contentious energy problems that emphasizes the use of different analytical frames as major sources of disagreement, and a case study regarding a dispute on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses of energy efficiency programs. Resolving differences among the research community and energy analysts requires a collaborative effort of painstaking research and debate. This paper articulates four policy implications. First, energy analysts should not be inexorably bound to their analytical frames. Second, analysts should not encroach on the role of policymakers by being asked to resolve questions that involve tradeoffs among fundamental values. Third, analysts have an important role helping to inform policymakers of the implications and limitations of various types of analyses of energy and environmental issues. Fourth, analysts need to develop a research program that is able to answer particular questions from multiple research frames in order to assess the robustness of their findings.

AB - Energy policy and research span multiple objectives, disciplines, methodologies, and data sets. This breadth of research results in conflicting analyses and proposals, which enable various parties to leverage these conflicts to further their vested interests. This paper explores these issues caused by differing research methodologies. It examines a recent proposal to search for common ground regarding contentious energy problems that emphasizes the use of different analytical frames as major sources of disagreement, and a case study regarding a dispute on how to conduct cost-benefit analyses of energy efficiency programs. Resolving differences among the research community and energy analysts requires a collaborative effort of painstaking research and debate. This paper articulates four policy implications. First, energy analysts should not be inexorably bound to their analytical frames. Second, analysts should not encroach on the role of policymakers by being asked to resolve questions that involve tradeoffs among fundamental values. Third, analysts have an important role helping to inform policymakers of the implications and limitations of various types of analyses of energy and environmental issues. Fourth, analysts need to develop a research program that is able to answer particular questions from multiple research frames in order to assess the robustness of their findings.

KW - Cost benefit analysis

KW - Energy analysis

KW - Energy efficiency

KW - Resolution of energy problems

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978114161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978114161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.038

DO - 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.038

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84978114161

VL - 96

SP - 711

EP - 716

JO - Energy Policy

JF - Energy Policy

SN - 0301-4215

ER -