Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability),

and the multi-level perspectiveFrank W. Geels

SPRU, University of SussexDTU- seminar, 10 May 2010

Copenhagen

Motivations: response to critics

• MLP as descriptive theory. What about explanation and causal mechanisms?

• MLP as functionalist or structuralist theory? What about agency?

• MLP as synthesizing middle range theory. Too much integration and eclecticism?

Appreciative, analytical framework needs specific auxiliary theories

E m erg en ce an d s tab ilisa tio n :* soc io -techn ical: A N T, LT S* soc io lo g ica l (S C O T 1)* bu sin ess an d m arke ting s tu d ies

D iffu sion :* eco nom ic (inc reasing re tu rns to ad op tio n , cost/pe rfo rm ance im p rov em en ts)* soc io lo g ica l (b an dw ago n effec ts)* soc io -techn ical (‘m om en tum ’)

* Trip le h elix* Tech no log ical fram es (S C O T 2 )* Tech no log ical reg im es (ev o lu tion ary e co nom ics)

* E co nom ic com pe titio n an d substitu tio n* D o m estica tio n

L ong w av e th eo ry

‘Im p ac t’ s tud ie s

Approach: reflexive article1. Venture in to social theory and ontologies: foundational assumptions about actors and causal mechanisms

2. Discuss various conceptualisations of transitions + sustainability

3. Reflection on epistemologya) Full synthesis of ontologiesb) Incommensurablec) Eclecticism (ad-hoc combinations)d) Crossovers

4. Discuss ontology crossovers in MLP + research agenda

Foundational parameters in social science

• Idealism vs. Materialism

• Individualist vs. Collectivist

• Conflict vs. Consensus

• Positivist vs. Interpretive approach

Different ontologies

1. Rational choice2. Evolution3. Structuralism4. Interpretivism/constructivism5. Functionalism (system theories)6. Conflict an power struggle7. Relationism

1. Rational choiceCausal agent: Individual, self-interested actors

Causal mechanism: Decentralized choice by instrumental rationality (cost-benefit calculation) and aggregation mechanism (often market)

Example: neo-classical economics

Transitions: 1) changes in factor costs lead to shifts along production

function. 2) technology adoption leads to shift in production function.

Sustainability: Get the prices right and leave to market.

2. EvolutionCausal agent: Boundedly rational agents in population competing for scarce

resources

Causal mechanism: Variation (search, innovation), selection, retention

Example: Evolutionary economics

Transitions: 1) Technological discontinuities, disruptive innovation emerge in niches

and subsequently replace incumbents [markets, technology, firms]2) Long wave theory and techno-economic paradigms: pervasive

technologies drive socio-institutional adaptation.

Sustainability: a) stimulate green variety (green technology, R&D investments), b) change selection environment (green taxes, regulations)

3. StructuralismCausal agent: Taken-for-granted deep structures (belief systems)

Causal mechanism: Deep structures’ operate 'behind the backs' of actors, influencing their views and preferences

Example: Structuralist anthropology (Levi Strauss), Frankfurt School, some cultural theories

Transitions: change in societal belief system and ideology create pre-conditions for socio-technical transitions (sense of urgency, legitimacy)

Sustainability: sustainability repertoire competes with other societal aspirations: a) neo-liberalism and globalisation, b) safety, security, threats, terrorism, c) individualism, self-development, tourism etc.

Dilemma: maybe beliefs change too late, when we experience problems

4. InterpretivismCausal agent: Individual actors with varying ideas and

interpretationsdecisions + (rational) choices are preceded by interpretations

Causal mechanism: Social interaction, construction of shared meaning, sensemaking, learning, debates.

Interpretations,cognitions, beliefs

Action

Outcomes,experiences

Reflection, sensemaking

Example: Social Construction of Technology, sensemaking

Transitions: a) Interpretive flexibility about desirability of niche-

innovations and direction of transitions. b) Importance of experimentation and (social) learning.c) ‘Closure’ and convergence accelerates transitions.

Sustainability: a) Green transitions hindered by lack of single vision. b) Sustainability is contested concept. Groups attach different

meanings to wind turbines etc. (‘green’, bird killers, horizon pollution, noise generators).

c) Debates, participation, deliberation are crucial.

5. Functionalism (system theories)Causal agent: Social system with sub-systems

Causal mechanism: Actors fulfil system needs, and enact roles, tasks, functions and norms

Example: Parson’s structural-functionalism, Technological Innovation Systems

Transitions: a) Exogenous shock disrupts equilibrium, and changes system needs. b) Political sub-system sets new goals, which adjust economic sub-system. c) Subsequent anchoring in social and cultural sub-systems.

Sustainability: a) ‘Cockpit’ view with benevolent leaders and experts adjusting systems in

green directions. b) Emphasis on treaties, targets, goals (e.g. Kyoto Protocol, Millennium

Development Goals) and subsequent implementation and monitoring.

6. Conflict and power struggleCausal agent: Collective actors (groups, classes) with conflicting interests

Causal mechanism: Conflict and power struggle (lobby, threats, backroom deals, coalition politics)

Power is multi-dimensional (resources, contacts, credibility etc).

Example: neo-Marxism, social movement theory, political economy

Transitions: a) Big industries capture policy makers and water down regulations. b) Niche-actors, social movements fight to change economic frame conditions. c) Transitions require shift in balance of power.

Sustainability: * many unsustainable industries have economic resources and political contacts. * Corporatist networks prevent transition. * Green niches need to grow (‘economic clout’) or link with public support to create

legitimacy-pressures.

7. RelationismCausal agent: Networks and ongoing relations * actors have no fixed ontology, but are constituted by network

Causal mechanism: Interaction, co-construction, translation, alignment

Example: actor-network theory, practice theory

Transitions: Unclear relevance, because of: a) micro-focus on local projects and practices, b) emphasis on fluidity, contingency which hinders generalization.Shove’s practice approach is exception for a)

Sustainability: • Focus on user practices, everyday life (bathing, showering, office

heating). • Mainly in unsustainable directions (so far).

Intermediate Conclusion* Different views on transitions* But differ in default orientation

Stability, equilibrium or incremental change• Rational choice• Structuralism• Functionalism

Change (and stability)• Evolution• Interpretivism• Power and conflict• Relationism

Ontology crossovers in MLP

Main crossover (also ASEAT + Ken)

1. Evolution theory: niches, regimes, trajectories, market selection

2. Interpretivism/constructivism: • regimes as ‘rules’ (Giddens)• creative actors (no cultural dopes)• Multi-actor process: interactions between social groups• emphasis on learning and networks

Structures (global rules)

Localpractices

(1) Structural conditioning, encoding[ ]variation

2) Social interaction:enactment of rules, moves in games [ ]variation

(3) Structural elaboration: Reproduction or transformation(institutional entrepreneurship,aggregation by macro-actors)[ ]selection

(4) Externalize, objectify, institutionalize [ ]retention

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

Figure 9: A recursive, diachronic model of structural change and reproduction (adapted from Barley and Tolbert, 1997: 101)

Crossovers to be elaborated in MLP (research agenda)

1. Conflict and power:

• Regime: a) policy networks and corporatism, b) corporate political strategy

• Social movement theory: outside groups who exert pressure: a) direct lobby, b) via framing and discourse, c) support for green niches

• Strategic games between niche and regime actors

Structural power relations(e.g. related to capitalist society)

Social movements

Politics

Industry

Corporatist network protects vested interests

Nurture niche innovations

Exert pressure (direct lobbyor via public opinion)

2. Structuralism

• Cultural ideology, repertoire at landscape level

• Cultural sociology and discourse theory to elaborate symbolic dimensions of niche and regime

• Importance of legitimacy + performance on public stages

Limited legitimacy of niche-innovations.Product champions develop positive ‘stories’ (and promises)that link with ideographs and regime problems

Cultural repertoires, ideographs,macro-agendas

Established discourseand discourse coalition

Culture

No crossovers to

1. Rational choice: works well in stable situations, but not in ‘periods of flux’

Social, political, organizational influence

Technologicaldiscontinuity

Era of ferment Era of incrementalchange

Dominant design

Technologicaldiscontinuity

Era of ferment

No crossovers to

2. Functionalism: Focus on system and consensus precludes attention

for conflict, diversity.Difficult to include niches (which emerge separately

from dominant system)

3. Relationism: ANT and practice theory see the world as ‘flat’

without ‘levels’ (although they do distinguish between stable and fluid networks).

Complexifying epistemology, instead of middle range

Conclusion1) Innovation studies well placed to study socio-technical transitions

2) Transitions to sustainability require conceptual broadeninga) Externalities, polity and civil societyb) Sustainability is contested cultural and interpretive theories.c) Sustainability threatens vested interests. need for conflict theories.

3) MLP useful middle-range framework, but needs complementary theories.

Much opportunities ahead by engaging with mainstream social science.

4) We need more theoretical resources, but also reflexivity