Explaining Sociotechnical Transitions: A Critical Realist Perspective

Abstract

This paper identifies and evaluates the explicit and implicit philosophical assumptions underlying the so-called multilevel perspective on sociotechnical transitions (MLP). These include assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology), the status of claims about that reality (epistemology) and the appropriate choice of research methods The paper assesses the consistency of these assumptions with the philosophical tradition of critical realism and uses this tradition to highlight a number of potential weaknesses of the MLP. These include: the problematic conception of social structure and the misleading priority given to intangible rules; the tendency to use theory as a heuristic device rather than causal explanation; the ambition to develop an extremely versatile framework rather than testing competing explanations; the relative neglect of the necessity or contingency of particular causal mechanisms; and the reliance upon single, historical case studies with insufficient use of comparative methods. However, the paper also concludes that the flexibility of the MLP allows room for reconciliation, and provides some suggestions on how that could be achievedincluding proposing an alternative, critical realist interpretation of sociotechnical systems.

How Deep Is Incumbency? Introducing a ‘Configuring Fields’ Approach to the Distribution and Orientation of Power in Socio-Material Change

“…The efforts made at methodological clarity, specificity, transparency and testability in Table 1 (albeit only partially successful), reflect struggles towards elusive qualities that are sometimes lacking in many extant approaches to socio-material incumbency and change 480 . Although there can be no panaceas, the framework sketched there may help point towards a remedy for some currently key obscurities and ambiguities in other approaches discussed in this article 481 . By contrast with many presently well-established 'middle range' social theoretic approaches to incumbency (like those based around 'innovation systems', 'socio-technical' systems, 'transition management' or 'the multi-level perspective' for instance), this configuring fields approach does not take for granted so many conveniently reductive methodological constructs 482…”

A Strategic Condition Framework for Energy Innovation

“…Viewed through another lens, innovation scholars and socio-technical transition researchers have offered insightful conceptual frameworks to help analysts dive deeper into the dynamics of innovation diffusion processes and the interaction of technology within the broader contexts of industry, society, and users, etc. (Sorrell 2017;Geels 2019). While the grand theories of these fields are useful in understanding system transformation dynamics (e.g., the evolution of the U.S. electricity system), these methods are often applied in the context of long-term historical transitions, and significantly, lack causal explanatory and predictive power.…”