Ontologies, socio-technical
transitions (to sustainability),
and the multi-level perspective
Frank W. Geels
SPRU, University of Sussex
DTU- 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
Long wave theory
‘Impact’ studies
* Triple helix
* Technological frames (SCOT2)
* Technological regimes (evolutionary
economics)
* Economic competition and substitution
* Domestication
Diffusion:
* economic (increasing returns to adoption,
cost/performance improvements)
* sociological (bandwagon effects)
* socio-technical (‘momentum’)
Emergence and stabilisation:
* socio-technical: ANT, LTS
* sociological (SCOT1)
* business and marketing studies
Approach: reflexive article
1. Venture in to social theory and ontologies:
 foundational assumptions about actors and causal mechanisms
2. Discuss various conceptualisations of transitions +
sustainability
3. Reflection on epistemology
a)
b)
c)
d)
Full synthesis of ontologies
Incommensurable
Eclecticism (ad-hoc combinations)
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Rational choice
Evolution
Structuralism
Interpretivism/constructivism
Functionalism (system theories)
Conflict an power struggle
Relationism
1. Rational choice
Causal 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. Evolution
Causal 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. Structuralism
Causal 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 preconditions 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. Interpretivism
Causal agent: Individual actors with varying ideas and
interpretations
decisions + (rational) choices are preceded by interpretations
Causal mechanism: Social interaction, construction of shared
meaning, sensemaking, learning, debates.
Interpretations,
cognitions, beliefs
Reflection,
sensemaking
Action
Outcomes,
experiences
Example: Social Construction of Technology, sensemaking
Transitions:
a) Interpretive flexibility about desirability of nicheinnovations 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 struggle
Causal 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. Relationism
Causal 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
(4) Externalize, objectify,
institutionalize [retention]
(4)
Structures
(global rules)
(3) Structural
elaboration:
(1) Structural Reproduction or
conditioning, transformation
encoding
(institutional
[variation]
entrepreneurship,
aggregation by
macro-actors)
[selection]
Local
practices
(3)
(1)
(2)
2) Social interaction:
enactment of rules, moves in games [variation]
Figure 9: A recursive, diachronic model of structural change and
reproduction (adapted from Barley and Tolbert, 1997: 101)
(1)
(2)
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)
Corporatist network protects vested interests
Politics
Industry
Exert pressure (direct lobby
or via public opinion)
Social movements
Nurture
niche
innovations
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
Cultural repertoires,
ideographs,
macro-agendas
Culture
Established discourse
and discourse coalition
Limited legitimacy of niche-innovations.
Product champions develop positive ‘stories’ (and promises)
that link with ideographs and regime problems
No crossovers to
1. Rational choice: works well in stable situations,
but not in ‘periods of flux’
Social, political,
organizational
influence
Era of ferment
Technological
discontinuity
Era of incremental
change
Dominant
design
Era of ferment
Technological
discontinuity
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
Conclusion
1) Innovation studies well placed to study socio-technical transitions
2) Transitions to sustainability require conceptual broadening
a) Externalities, polity and civil society
b) 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