One use for a blog is to liberate me – as a writer – from strict styles of writing (as I understand them). For academic writing this means that I can try, here, to spell out what it is I think and know more freely. No less factually, but with… less infrastructure required?
Why? I’ve struggled at times with writer’s block when it comes to my own work. When writing for others, or as a contribution to something I’m working on together with other active authors, I don’t have the same struggles. Mostly because it’s not purely to be “my work”, but partly because many of the word choice, structure or message decisions are either someone else’s or I share that responsibility with another person (or persons). And no, I don’t mean Chat GPT; I won’t use an “AI” as a co-author for something that I feel matters. New knowledge and thinking matters – an LLM is not that creative.
Yet, I suppose. We’ll see.
Back to the point.
What I’m going to do here through the medium of my blog is to try to express my thinking of and on legitimacy. This will be (a foreshadowing of?) the points I make in my dissertation project. Points that I have partly written, but mostly so far only carry in my head. Writer’s block you know. And a little bit of “fear of the final”. Here I think I can avoid at least the pressure to be exactly right in the final version even if the dissertation draft is only a first draft. There’s a lot of weight on it. This’ll be a public draft if you will.
For someone to copy? Chat GPT will for sure. So will some second rate academic somewhere. No way to avoid that anymore. Anyway. Was here first.
Mostly though I think it’ll be useful for me to get my thoughts straight (or more convoluted!) which should help get the dissertation part written out. Also, I think it’ll be useful for practitioners – It’ll be a bit more accessible hopefully.
So, here’s how I’ll proceed with this series:
- Three perspectives to legitimacy
- Grounded examples of the three different perspectives to legitimacy
- My twist: How I think the three types of legitimacy interact
- Analysing Patriotta, Gond and Schultz – I.e. where we are thinking alike and where I go off to (in light of Suddable 2017 etc.). also where do I fit in relation to this.
- Drafting a framework – narrating my doodles.
- How I think SLO and legitimacy are related. Also, why I don’t entirely agree with Gehman, Lefsrud and Fast.
- A genealogy of legitimacy discussions in sustainability and related fields (or something like that – might be too much work as it’s not really the focus here).
The above may change.
I might publish these all in one lump. But as separate posts. Lets see.
Oh, and I’ve been a bit ill and a bit busy sorting things out, trying to write, and a bit ill again. Hence the “getting back at it”.