The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical Systems Reviews

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics of stability and change is key to accelerate sustainability transitions. This newspaper aims to accelerate and inspire sustainability transition research on this affair by collecting insights from interpretative environmental discourse literature. We develop a heuristic that identifies and describes core discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical system. In doing and then, we show how the interplay of meta-, institutionalized, and alternative discourses, dominant, marginal, and radical narratives, besides every bit weak and strong discursive agency influence the socio-technical configuration. The heuristic suggests three discursive lock-ins reinforcing the stabilization of socio-technical systems: unchallenged values and assumptions, incumbents' discursive bureau, and narrative co-optation. Furthermore, information technology explores iii pathways of discursive change: disruptive, dynamic and cross-sectoral. Overall, this paper puts frontward a discursive perspective on sustainability transitions. Information technology offers additional analytical approaches and concepts for discursive transition studies, elaborated insights on the dynamics within and between the analytical dimensions of a socio-technical system, also every bit a theoretical baseline for analyzing discursive lock-in mechanisms and pathways of discursive modify.

Introduction

The exchange between various social scientific discipline disciplines is crucial to enhance the understanding and assay of transformations toward sustainability. This paper contributes to this commutation. It connects key concepts of sustainability transition studies and environmental soapbox literature, offering a discursive perspective on sustainability transitions. The scientific field of sustainability transitions analyzes structural and systemic changes toward sustainability; it explores such changes in product and consumption patterns as well as their related societal challenges. This bookish community holds the underlying assumption and motivation that solutions to the environmental problems brought by unsustainable production and consumption "cannot be addressed by incremental improvements and technological fixes, but crave radical shifts to new kinds of socio-technical systems" (Köhler et al. 2019, p. ii). Socio-technical systems (such every bit energy, water, or mobility) are commonly understood to represent the interactions and interlinkages between actors and their established practices, institutions, and textile artifacts fulfilling a societal function (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2016). To attain a sustainable lodge, various socio-technical systems require fundamental shifts. This means that "sustainability transitions are long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift more toward sustainable modes of production and consumption" (Markard et al. 2012, p. 956). Sustainability transitions research focuses primarily on processes of stability and alter to observe ways that back up the dispatch and governance of these transitions.

To address these complex questions, the field of sustainability transitions has broadened its horizons in diverse directions (Köhler et al. 2019). The academic customs is continuously growing and expanding the topics, geographies, and methods covered in the field. On a theoretical level, transition scholars are exploring new alleys of substitution with other social science theories and disciplines (e.g.,Geels 2010; Geels et al. 2016; Sovacool and Hess 2017). The field of interpretative, constructivist, and poststructuralist approaches has been identified as promising to further develop the understanding and analysis of processes of stability and change for sustainability (Geels 2010; Geels and Verhees 2011; Köhler et al. 2019; Sovacool and Hess 2017). These approaches indicate to the relevance of values, assumptions, and discourses expressed through language in shaping transition processes. Consequently, using an interpretative lens for the analysis of these discourses is crucial to understand how sustainable futures are created, too as how these discourses undermine or support existing unsustainable structures and practices (Feola and Jaworska 2019).

The adoption of interpretative research designs, such as discourse analysis, in transition research has increased significantly over the last decade (Isoaho and Karhunmaa 2019). This has led to multiple new insights on sustainability transition that were not possible without this ontological shift. First, using discourse analysis has led to a more politically sensitive understanding of transition processes: seen for instance by the analyses of actors' visions, narratives, and coalitions (Kern 2011), the ability of incumbents (Bosman et al. 2014; Geels 2014), and the role of framing and estimation (Hermwille 2016; Kriechbaum et al. 2021). 2d, integrating discursive concepts into transition research has enhanced the agreement of the production of cultural legitimacy for culling ideas (Geels and Verhees 2011; Rosenbloom 2018) as well equally the function of negative narratives for undermining the dominant socio-technical configuration (Roberts 2017). Overall, the apply of interpretative discourse assay in transition studies has mainly focused on specific cases of sense-making and how this sense-making legitimizes or delegitimizes sure sustainability transition pathways. A more than structured exchange is lacking betwixt transition inquiry and interpretative discourse assay (in the field of environmental policy) on the role of discursive elements in processes of stability and alter. This limits the agreement of the discursive mechanisms hindering sustainability transitions and the potential pathways enabling discursive change.

To facilitate this exchange between social science disciplines and to enhance the discursive perspective on sustainability transitions, this newspaper presents a heuristic that links key concepts of ecology discourse literature and transition research. First, nosotros place and describe cadre discursive elements relevant for understanding processes of stability and change in the interpretative discourse literature ("Interpretative soapbox assay on processes of stability and change"). 2nd, we link these core discursive elements to the prominent analytical dimensions of transition inquiry (landscape, authorities, and niche) to testify how these discursive elements and their dynamics influence the configuration of a socio-technical system ("Discursive dynamics in a socio-technical system"). Third, we explore the role of these discursive elements and dynamics on persistent stability past conceptualizing diverse discursive lock-in mechanisms and outlining potential pathways of discursive change ("A conceptualization of discursive lock-in mechanisms"). Building on the insights generated with this heuristic, we discuss the added value of this discursive perspective for hereafter transition enquiry and governance ("Discussion and conclusions"). In sum, this written report (1) offers additional analytical approaches and concepts for discursive transition studies; (2) elaborates the understanding of the dynamics within and between the various analytical dimensions of a socio-technical system; and (3) provides an ideal–typical conceptualization of discursive lock-in mechanisms and pathways of discursive change, supporting a discursive perspective on socio-technical systems—adjacent to the cloth, institutional and behavioral counterparts.

Interpretative soapbox analysis on processes of stability and change

Interpretative discourse approaches take their origin in critical and interpretative policy studies, which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a critique of the positivistic and rational conception of knowledge and its consequent assay of political processes (Fischer and Forester 1993). The ascendant technocratic policy research failed to detect helpful solutions to the social and political problems of the time, whereas interpretative approaches brought in a new agreement of these problems by including the historical and cultural dimensions of knowledge cosmos and decision-making (Fischer et al. 2015). Based on the idea that knowledge is something "synthetic" rather than "objective", a new perspective on reality arose, as something individual rather than general (Berger and Luckmann 1966). This new perspective not simply led to different political discussions, it initiated a reflection on the (social) sciences themselves (Münch 2015). Building on the piece of work of philosopher Michel Foucault, diverse discursive approaches and heuristics have been adult, such as Laclau and Mouffe'due south post-Marxist Discourse Theory, the Critical Discourse Assay of Fairclough, the Belligerent Discourse Analysis of Hajer, Schmidt's Discursive Institutionalism, Keller's Folklore of Knowledge Approach to Discourse, and the Discursive Agency Arroyo of Leipold and Winkel. While these approaches differ in their specific focus and objective, they share an aim to sympathise and analyze the role of socially synthetic structures, expressed through language, in shaping deportment. Increasingly, multiple social science disciplines are employing discursive concepts, theories, and methods to understand processes of (environmental) politics and policy change (Keller 2012; Leipold et al. 2019). Although various authors have reviewed and summarized the interpretative discourse literature (e.g.,Fischer et al. 2015; Leipold and Winkel 2017; Scrase and Ockwell 2010), we deem it necessary for this paper's conceptual baseline to explore the fundamental discursive elements and their contribution to a discursive agreement of stability and change.

Institutionalized and alternative discourses

The interpretative discourse literature holds diverse definitions and descriptions of the concept "discourse". For case, Dryzek (2013) describes discourse as "a shared way of acumen the world. Embedded in language information technology enables subscribers to interpret bits of information and put them together into coherent stories or accounts. Each discourse rests on assumptions, judgements, and contentions that provide the basic terms for analysis, debates, agreements and disagreements" (p.viii). Alternatively, Hajer and Versteeg (2005) ascertain discourse a little more than specifically, equally "an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable fix of practices" (p.1). Overall, any give-and-take can be perceived as an exemplification of competing discourses struggling for say-so, every bit the dominant soapbox'south estimation of the consequence volition be perceived equally common sense and hold power over the problem clarification, appropriate solutions, and responsibilities (Carstensen and Schmidt 2016; Leipold and Winkel 2017).

Over fourth dimension, a discourse can get sanctioned (Williams 2020) or institutionalized (Hajer 1995), meaning that its assumptions are unquestioned and its meaning structures are reflected in the cloth reality, institutional configuration, and social practices. This dominance is not permanent; it may exist challenged by culling discourses transferring a dissimilar meaning construction. This discursive struggle is an ongoing process and forms the arena for dynamics of stability and change. Important is that both institutionalized and alternative discourses "require a constant discursive reproduction [through narratives and discursive agents] to guarantee the continuity of its pregnant structures" (Hajer 1995, p. 125). Discursive modify is when an alternative significant structure with its other materialities, institutions, and practices is reproduced more than than the institutionalized one.

Dominant, marginal, and radical narratives

Narratives (also called storylines) form a key element of the discursive struggle between institutionalized and alternative discourses. Hajer (1995, 2006) explores the concept in depth in his Argumentative Discourse Analysis and this agreement was taken up by other approaches such as Discursive Institutionalism, Sociology of Cognition Approach to Soapbox, and the Discursive Agency Approach. Narratives here are often conceptualized equally a subset of overarching discourses. They summarize discourses in condensed stories, containing heroes and villains struggling in a specific setting, a plot outlining their motives, and a morality suggesting specific advice (east.g., a policy solution). In doing so, narratives brand circuitous issues and debates tangible and let actors to transfer meaning structures. When a majority of the actors involved reproduce the same narrative, it can exist perceived every bit dominant and volition shape an unchallenged understanding of the given outcome and its appropriate deportment, contributing to the institutionalization of the overall discourse. For a narrative to get dominant it needs to exist attractive, convincing, and legitimate. The interpretative soapbox literature identifies various factors that may raise these characteristics, such equally sufficient ambiguity (Hajer 1995; Stone 1989), a relation to historical or current events (Stone 1989), piece of cake and emotion-evoking linguistic communication (Leipold and Winkel 2016; Rock 1989), as well as highly-seasoned symbols and metaphors (Hajer 1995) or frames (Keller 2011).

In response to the institutionalized discourse and its ascendant narratives, alternative narratives may emerge and evolve, which form the "prime vehicles of change" (Hajer 1995, p. 63). These alternative narratives can vary regarding their orientation toward the dominant discourse, presenting stories that differ just "marginally" to ones that differ "radically" (Hajer 1995, p. 232). The success of these marginal or radical narratives largely depends on the legitimacy and reproduction of the culling viewpoints in question. Consequently, in that location occurs a "discursive dilemma" (Hajer 1995, p. 57). A radical narrative presenting a completely new story risks not existence reproduced at all, whereas a marginally different narrative aligning with the ascendant ideas risks inducing only incremental change.

Strong and weak discursive agency

Another key element of the discursive struggle is discursive bureau, which received specific attention in the interpretative discourse literature with the introduction of the Discursive Agency Approach. Post-obit Leipold and Winkel (2017), discursive bureau "can be defined as an actor's ability to brand him/herself a relevant agent in a detail soapbox by constantly making choices nigh whether, where, when, and how to identify with a detail field of study position in specific storylines [narratives] within this discourse" (p. 524). This ability to become a potent discursive amanuensis largely depends on the positional characteristics (e.thou. mandates, resources, etc.) and individual characteristics (e.chiliad. skills, knowledge, etc.) attributed to the actor. Side by side to that, Leipold and Winkel (2017) signal to a wide range of strategic practices that discursive agents tin use to support their narratives, such as coalition building (derived from Hajer 1995), discursive practices such as rationalizing or emotionalizing the debate, excluding or delegitimizing some actors and their narratives, as well as governance and organizational strategic practices that target the discussion format itself.) Leipold (2021) presents a concise overview and an empirical example of the diverse strategic practices identified in the interpretative soapbox literature so far. In sum, the reproduction of narratives not simply depends on the narrative itself, but likewise on the characteristics and strategic practices of the actors and coalitions that actively transfer its meaning constructs.

Meta-discourse

Finally, many discourse scholars indicate to deep-rooted values and assumptions or meta-discourses every bit being relevant to the discursive struggle. These meta-discourses are non specific to one political upshot or actor, but rather, are more abstract and general. Fairclough (2012) sees these meta-discourses in "recent and contemporary processes of social transformation which are variously identified by such terms as 'neo-liberalism', 'globalization', 'transition'" (p.452). These meta-discourses can also be understood every bit an "gild of discourse", a concept introduced by Foucault (1972), referring to overarching dominant constructs of pregnant in gild. This is not to say in that location are no alternative meaning structures, but one time a particular meta-discourse becomes dominant it appears to be mutual sense and thereby sustaining itself (Sengul 2019). In other words, meta-discourses are strong and stock-still abstruse ideas that fix an even broader context in which the interactive processes between discourses, narratives, and agents takes place. This means that changes in the ideological context are needed to radically modify the effect of the discursive struggle: "changes in semiosis [meta-discourse] are a precondition for wider processes of social change" (Fairclough 2012, p. 458). Nevertheless, the meta-discourse is often "'exterior' or 'beyond' politics" and becomes unquestionable (Machin 2019, p. 209). Therefore, analyzing the deeper assumptions behind a discourse is crucial to understand its structural context and how these assumptions are reproduced (cf. Inayatullah 1998, on causal layered assay). Making these structures visible through deconstruction is a first step toward analyzing and critically discussing the power of these ideas, consequently enabling change (Fairclough 2012).

Discursive dynamics in a socio-technical system

To address the second objective of this paper and conceptualize the discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical system, we relate the various discursive elements (as discussed in "Interpretative discourse analysis on processes of stability and change") to the prominently used analytical dimensions in transition studies, i.e., landscape, government, and niche, which represent a continuum of degrees of structuration in and across a socio-technical system. Post-obit Fuenfschilling and Truffer (2014), we understand these dimensions as an analytical perspective to differentiate betwixt degrees of structuration and to disentangle the complexity of dynamics in a socio-technical organisation. In our conceptualization, we add a discursive perspective to the analytical dimensions, showing what discursive elements and dynamics are at play, and illuminating their role in the configuration of the socio-technical system. We address each of the analytical dimensions and the related discursive elements and dynamics in more detail in the subsections of this affiliate likewise as graphically in Fig. 1. With this conceptualization, we aim to provide a heuristic to guide scientific research on discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical system rather than enforce a rigid framework. As both discursive and socio-technical developments are dependent on interpretations and their context-specific developments, other discursive dynamics may be institute in each empirical case. While not exhaustive, this heuristic provides a conceptual foundation and a starting point to analyze socio-technical systems from a discursive perspective.

Fig. 1

Discursive elements, dynamics and lock-ins in a socio-technical system. The various discursive elements (meta-, institutionalized, and culling discourse, dominant, marginal and radical narratives, as well every bit strong and weak discursive bureau) and the normally used analytical dimensions of transition studies (landscape, authorities, and niche) can both exist placed on a continuum of structuration, from well-developed structuration to structuration in development. This figure shows which discursive elements marshal with which dimensions and illuminates the discursive dynamics that influence the established practices, institutions, and fabric artifacts of the socio-technical system. Key discursive dynamics are the contextual power of the meta-soapbox, the discursive struggle betwixt institutionalized and alternative discourses as well as the continuous strive for reproduction and legitimacy of all types of narratives and discursive agents. Three main discursive lock-in mechanisms back up the persistent stability of a socio-technical system as they self-reinforce the reproduction of the institutionalized discourse: the unchallenged values of the meta-discourse, the incumbents' strong discursive agency, equally well as the potential narrative co-optation that reinforce existing structures. These lock-in mechanisms reinforce the condition quo and need to be unlocked to reach a sustainability transition

Full size image

Meta-discourses at the landscape dimension

In transition research, the landscape dimension forms one stop of the continuum of structuration, representing overarching societal values, trends, and events (east.g. globalization or natural disasters) that shape the external context of a socio-technical organization (Geels 2004; Schot and Kanger 2018). Applying a discursive perspective, meta-discourses narrate the landscape dimension, edifice on values and assumptions that are unchallenged and often perceived equally common sense in more than i system. In this view, meta-discourses shape the external context and directionality of the emergence and development of socio-technical systems (represented as an overarching box in Fig. 1). Consequently, the relation of the meta-soapbox with other discursive elements at the regime and niche dimensions forms a primal discursive dynamic. Meta-discourses are non sector or actor specific and may be shared by diverse socio-technical systems. For instance, discussions on environmental policy in diverse domains are oftentimes shaped past the meta-discourse "ecological modernization" (due east.thou.,Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006; Dryzek 2013; Hajer 1995). This ideological construct is structured around the thought that economic growth and environmental protection can go hand-in-hand; it "refers to a restructuring of the backer political economy along more environmentally sound lines" (Hajer 1995, p. 25). In this way, information technology allows for a new orientation toward more environmentally friendly practices without challenging the overarching backer ideas and assumptions (Dryzek 2013). Learning from the interpretative discourse literature, it is key to critically reflect on these underlying values and assumptions (Fairclough 2012), to foster active societal discussions (Inayatullah 1998), and to make the meta-discourse part of the discursive struggle (Leipold 2021; Machin 2019).

Institutionalized discourses at the authorities dimension

The authorities dimension, holding institutionalized rules and practices of a specific socio-technical organisation (east.k., energy, water, or mobility), represents the middle part of the continuum of structuration (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014; Geels 2004). In our ideal–typical conceptualization, we relate the regime to an institutionalized discourse represented by ascendant narratives and strong discursive bureau. Following this discursive perspective, we argue that the institutionalized discourse shapes the development and structuration of the other system elements, such as established practices (e.m., patterns of product and consumption), institutions (e.g., regulations, standards, values), and a range of material artifacts such as technologies and infrastructure (see Fig. 1). Of course, in an empirical transition context, a dialectic or co-evolutionary human relationship betwixt discourses and other organisation elements tin be expected (Schneidewind and Augenstein 2016; Seto et al. 2016). Nevertheless, for the purpose of this conceptualization, nosotros follow Gailing'south (2016) application of Foucault'southward thoughts on a socio-technical system and contend that materialities, institutions, and practices play a crucial role in the socio-technical configuration, "but merely proceeds importance in a broader context of […] discourses" (p. 247).

Empirically, the authorities dimension tin be characterized by an institutionalized discourse, represented by ascendant narratives that are reproduced by a coalition of incumbent actors with strong discursive agency (see Leipold and Winkel 2016, for an example on the U.s.a. wood industry). However, the degree of structuration of the institutionalized discourse is non static and can modify over time, for case through changes in the related meta-discourse or due to the discursive struggle with an culling discourse (Kaufmann and Wiering 2021). Consequently, regimes can be less structured and semi-coherent (Rosenbloom 2018) and tensions between incumbents' narratives may emerge (Bosman et al. 2014). Over fourth dimension, the narratives, as well as the coalition of (incumbent) discursive agents, might alter at the regime dimension, with consequent changes in textile artifacts, institutions, and established practices.

Alternative discourses at the niche dimension

The niche dimension characterizes the other cease of the continuum of structuration. Hither, culling socio-technical configurations are formed and the development of structuration is an ongoing process (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014; Smith and Raven 2012). Adding a discursive perspective, the niche dimension is related to alternative discourses. Presented through marginal or radical narratives by weak discursive agents, these ideas do cyberspace yet hold power in themselves, just rather, emerge out of a reaction to and are influenced past the structures at the regime and landscape dimensions. Therefore, multiple alternative discourses tin emerge in relation to the same institutionalized discourse. As presented in Fig. 1, these alternative discourses tin be at different degrees of structuration. There may be radical narratives representing a completely new innovation, or marginal narratives representing a slightly alternative approach that does not disrupt the dominant view, as well as everything in between. These alternative discourses compete with the institutionalized soapbox too as with each other. In the transition literature, the difference between radical and marginal narratives has been captured by Smith and Raven (2012), who talk nearly fit-and-conform and stretch-and-transform narratives, equally different approaches for culling narratives to compete with the regime. Learning from the interpretative soapbox literature, the success of an culling narrative not only depends on its attractiveness and legitimacy, but likewise on the strength of the discursive agents reproducing it. For case, Simoens and Leipold (2021) show that narratives reproduced by non-incumbent actors with weak discursive agency were not included in the policy discussions on a new German language packaging regulation.

There are also culling discourses possible that emerge equally a reaction to a meta-discourse, and stand outside of this context (e.g. anarchy). These are not system specific, but rather, they offering a mostly unlike perspective based on culling values and assumptions (see Fig. 1).

A conceptualization of discursive lock-in mechanisms

The conceptualization of discursive elements and dynamics in socio-technical systems allows further exploring the role of these dynamics in transitions. At the core of transition research are the concepts path dependency and lock-in, which provide insights into the mechanisms that induce persistent stability and that need to exist overcome or unlocked to foster change toward sustainability (Grin et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2017). Historical developments may shape diverse positive feedback mechanisms and create self-reinforcing mechanisms that reproduce – and lock-in the current socio-technical configuration (Arthur 1994; Foxon 2014; Klitkou et al. 2015). This self-reinforcing nature is the characteristic that distinguishes lock-in mechanisms from other transition barriers or overall inertia (Kotilainen et al. 2019). Scholars mainly anticipate and analyze lock-in mechanisms related to the material artifacts, institutions, and established practices of a socio-technical system (Klitkou et al. 2015; Kotilainen et al. 2019; Seto et al. 2016). So far, discursive lock-ins have been overlooked (Buschmann and Oels 2019). Consequently, while the literature provides clear and attainable categorizations of cloth, institutional and behavioral lock-in mechanisms (for a comprehensive overview meet Kotilainen et al. 2019; Seto et al. 2016), these are missing for the discursive counterpart. This development is crucial as, "understanding how and when lock-in emerges besides helps identify windows of opportunity when transitions […] are possible" (Seto et al. 2016, p. 446).

This paper proposes a get-go list of discursive lock-in mechanisms. In line with Buschmann and Oels (2019), nosotros understand a discourse as locked-in when its dynamics of discursive reproduction become self-reinforcing, shaping a persistent perception of reality. In other words, the institutionalized discourse or "the temporarily fixed rules of the game" (Leipold and Winkel 2017, p. 523) becomes automatically reproduced. To conceptualize how this cocky-reinforcement takes place and where to find it in the socio-technical system, we build on the heuristic of discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical organisation outlined earlier in this paper likewise every bit on empirical examples in the literature. In the following paragraphs, we place three discursive dynamics that are self-reinforcing and consequently lock-in the institutionalized discourse, generate discursive inertia and forestall socio-technical alter. Figure i indicates where in the socio-technical system these discursive lock-in mechanisms are situated.

Discursive lock-in 1: unchallenged values and assumptions of meta-discourses

Exploring the interpretative soapbox literature shows that while meta-discourses are abstract and often not consciously discussed in society, they are nonetheless very powerful as they set the context for the discursive struggle between various perceptions of reality. Discursive agents and narratives that build on the values and assumptions of a meta-soapbox automatically possess more influential characteristics compared to those aligned with dissimilar values and assumptions. Consequently, an institutionalized discourse that reproduces the same perception of reality as a meta-discourse will go largely unquestioned and be perceived as the best and only way in the socio-technical system. In this situation, the institutionalized discourse holds so much power in itself that other voices are excluded, confrontation with alternative ideas is avoided, and underlying values and assumptions are no longer critically challenged and discussed. Moreover, if the institutionalized discourse is closely aligned with the values and assumptions of meta-discourses, these discourses at an abstract level versus a more than specific level—will mutually exchange confirmation and reproduction of the narratives, granting discursive agency to the actors reproducing them. In this style, the unchallenged values and assumptions of the meta-discourses create contexts in which institutionalized discourses are automatically reproduced and reinforced. A clear example of this lock-in are the unchallenged values and assumptions of the meta-discourse ecological modernization (as explained in "Meta-discourses at the landscape dimension") in a circular economy policy context. Leipold (2021) argues the circular economy discourse at the Eu "was created to transform Eu policy discourses 'from within' only eventually perpetuated the established discourse of ecological modernization" (p. one). Ampe et al. (2019) bear witness how ecological modernization limits the transformational potential of round strategies and only leaves room for incremental change.

Discursive lock-in 2: incumbents' strong discursive agency

A second cocky-reinforcing discursive lock-in mechanism is the ability of incumbents' strong discursive agency to reproduce the institutionalized soapbox. In whatever struggle between institutionalized and alternative discourses, incumbent actors will play an important office as they will automatically be perceived every bit potent discursive agents through their mandates, knowledge, expertise, or other personal or positional characteristics. In other words, the employ of strategic practices that enhance the reproduction of their narratives and consequent perception of reality will be more successful by incumbents than past non-incumbents with weaker discursive agency. Again, the report of Simoens and Leipold (2021) on the policy-making process of the 2019 German Packaging Act provides an empirical example, showing that the same actors that implemented the sometime packaging waste matter management regulation were involved in the policy-making process of the new regulation. Every bit the onetime regulation gave these incumbent agents their personal and positional characteristics, they aimed to keep (or better) their ability in the socio-technical organisation by reproducing at to the lowest degree to a large extent the narratives of this already institutionalized discourse. Consequently, strong discursive agents will lock-in the institutionalized discourse to protect their responsibilities, resource, and positions in the organisation.

Discursive lock-in 3: narrative co-optation

The persistent reproduction or lock-in of the institutionalized discourse tin also result from the discursive dilemma between radical or marginal narratives (Hajer 1995). In any discursive struggle with the institutionalized discourse, alternative narratives tin can nowadays radically new ideas, with the risk of not being reproduced by any discursive agent, or they can speak within the format of the institutionalized discourse, with a higher run a risk of being sufficiently reproduced to become influential. However, the marginal narratives hold the chance of being co-opted by the dominant narrative. In other words, if the marginal narrative aligns too closely with the dominant narrative to convince incumbent discursive agents it loses its transformational power. Consequently, the reproduction of this marginal narrative locks in the institutionalized discourse rather than changing it. For example, Williams (2020) analyses the discursive struggle around hydropower in transboundary rivers in Asia and shows how alternative discourses on climate change governance and sustainable development are co-opted to support the dominant narratives advocating for hydropower equally a renewable energy. Alternatively, marginal narratives can exist co-opted by strong discursive agents aiming to accost some changes in the meta-discourse such every bit more focus on sustainability to remain influential. In this style, the core values and assumptions of their narrative remain the aforementioned, and only minor or no changes in the established practices, institutions and material artifacts can be identified.

Unlocking pathways of discursive change

Unlocking self-reinforcing institutionalized discourses and enabling discursive modify is crucial to heighten sustainability transitions. This heuristic shows the variety of discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical arrangement and conceptualizes a first understanding of how and where discursive lock-in mechanisms emerge and may hinder alter. Based on these insights, this next section explores 3 ideal–typical pathways of discursive change that may provide insights on potential windows of opportunity to unlock the discursive configuration. To practise and so, we build on the current understanding of discursive lock-in (every bit presented past Buschmann and Oels 2019, and further developed in this newspaper) likewise as insights of the interpretative discourse literature on discursive change. We link these insights with the transition scholars' concept of pathways. Following the definition of Turnheim et al. (2015), pathways are "patterns of change in socio-technical systems unfolding over time that lead to new ways of achieving specific societal functions" (p. 240). Calculation the discursive perspective, we understand pathways every bit patterns of discursive change, where the discursive struggle between the various discursive elements, allows for a new or different institutionalized discourse leading to alternative textile artifacts, institutions, and established practices. We do not aim to provide a rigid framework or clear-cut unlocking strategies, but rather, nosotros present an overview of potential pathways of discursive modify and of how discursive lock-in can potentially exist overcome in a socio-technical setting. This overview may serve the transition community as a starting signal and guidance for future empirical work on the role of discursive change for sustainability transitions.

Nosotros name a starting time pathway disruptive discursive change. This refers to discursive modify resulting from exogenous events, such as natural disasters, that alter the values and assumptions of the meta-soapbox (Buschmann and Oels 2019). Past themselves these events have no inherent significant, simply are socially synthetic into discursive events (Hajer 1995). For example, Hermwille (2016) shows how different countries variously translated the meaning of the nuclear ending of Fukushima into their values and assumptions about nuclear free energy. Consequently, this variation in discursive translation led to different degrees of discursive change at the mural level and policy alter in the countries. In sum, confusing discursive change may unlock the unchallenged values and assumptions of the meta-discourse and create a change in the context of the discursive elements and dynamics of the socio-technical system, providing opportunities for alternative discourses to gain dominance.

A second pathway dynamic discursive alter refers to change from within. Although information technology is nonetheless debated if discursive modify from within can only atomic number 82 to incremental transitions or whether information technology holds the potential for radical change (Ferguson 2015; Leipold 2021), the discursive literature projects dissimilar streams inside this pathway that may pb to a dynamic variation of discursive modify. One stream focuses on disclosing the underlying values and assumptions of the meta-soapbox more than actively, in club to challenge its meaning structures for example, equally Machin (2019) argues for the win–win message of ecological modernization. Taking a closer await behind buzzwords like "sustainability" or "circular economy" may inform changes in the discursive struggle and make the meta-discourse a more active function of the discursive struggle (Leipold et al. 2021). Alternatively, dynamic discursive change may be achieved by opening up the discursive struggle for alternative narratives as well equally making these attractive for incumbent agents and consequently destabilizing the institutionalized discourse. As Bosman et al. (2014) debate, "storylines in the making are not merely innocent language, merely can lead to discursive repositioning among incumbents with implications for the coherence of the regime" (p. 56). For example, various participatory methods can exist used to include "unheard" narratives more prominently in the discursive struggle (Marquardt et al. 2021); or new narratives may exist created that aim to build trust and provide infinite to discuss conflicts that ascend from a transition by default (Luo et al. 2021). Moreover, presenting clear directions and goals of a desired transition may help to convince stiff discursive agents from an alternative soapbox (Simoens and Leipold 2021). A terminal dynamic stream focuses on unlocking the discursive bureau of incumbents past breaking power asymmetries (Buschmann and Oels 2019) or delegitimizing parts of incumbent groups (Leipold and Winkel 2016). For instance, Williams (2020) points to the relevance of adding new actors with new ideas to the discursive struggle, and Leipold (2021) stresses the need for new discursive agents that tin can struggle "at centre-level" with the incumbents for discursive change. Rethinking the process of (ecology) policy-making as well as addressing the concerns of potent incumbent actors who might be the losers of a sustainability transition (e.m., fossil fuel industries) may assist to enable discursive modify. In sum, the various streams of dynamic discursive change tin address different discursive lock-in mechanisms simultaneously, creating an contradistinct discursive configuration that may lead to a transition in the overall socio-technical system.

A third pathway is cross-sectoral discursive change, which builds on the idea of deliberative learning between various socio-technical systems. Buschmann and Oels (2019) argue that "deliberative processes need to encourage understanding and learning across discourses" (p. 4). In a socio-technical setting, this deliberation may happen between related socio-technical systems (e.g., energy and mobility). The effects of disruptive or dynamic discursive change in one socio-technical organisation may consequently create change in the structuration of another arrangement.

This overview of discursive change pathways shows that there is no unmarried all-time or obvious strategy to unlock discursive lock-in mechanisms and to enable discursive change. While disruptive change may enable radical transitions, information technology may besides depend on undesirable shocking events to open up up the discursive struggle. Furthermore, while dynamic change may enable transitions on the long run, it risks fostering but incremental change. The same holds for cross-sectoral change, while depending on successful transitions elsewhere. This overview shows there is not only i unlocking pathway for each lock-in mechanism, but rather, there are diverse pathways to unlock the overall discursive configuration. Depending on the empirical context and the caste of structuration of the socio-technical organization at a given time, these approaches 1 or multiple ones may present a window of opportunity to enable discursive modify.

Discussion and conclusions

To back up the exchange between interpretative discourse literature and sustainability transition research, this newspaper explores the role of discursive elements and dynamics for stability and change in a socio-technical system. To conclude this study, nosotros discuss the added value of this discursive perspective for transition research and governance.

First, this paper offers additional belittling approaches and concepts for discursive studies in sustainability transition research. So far, interpretative discourse analysis has mainly been used to analyze processes of sense-making in transitions. However, the exploration of discursive elements and dynamics in this paper shows that the large potential of interpretative discourse approaches lies in the analysis of how discourses shape the established practices, institutions, and material artifacts of a socio-technical system. In other words, discursive studies tin raise the understanding of why a system is configured as it is as well as how and why a organization has or has not changed over time. Furthermore, the overview of discursive elements and dynamics indicate to the inseparableness of narratives and discursive bureau. While the transition literature on narratives is more than developed (Hermwille 2016; Roberts 2017; Rosenbloom et al. 2016; Smith and Raven 2012), the role of discursive agency remains unexplored. Building on the Discursive Agency Approach, concrete belittling concepts such equally the attribution of characteristics or the use of strategic practices can exist used to sympathise what makes an actor into a (discursive) amanuensis and how they influence the transition process. These concepts may complement the current conceptualization of agency in transition research (for an overview see Fischer and Newig 2016; Köhler et al. 2019) as well equally deepen the empirical understanding of the characteristics and strategic practices of incumbent and innovative actors in shaping the socio-technical configuration. These analytical tools may enhance the understanding of discursive struggles in sustainability transition processes and form an opportunity to shift the enquiry focus from narratives solely to the interactions between narratives and discursive agents. It is the combination of an influential narrative with a potent discursive agent that forms a key condition for change (Lang et al. 2019; Leipold et al. 2016).

Second, the discursive perspective on a socio-technical system elaborates on the understanding of the dynamics inside and between the various analytical dimensions. For instance, the heuristic points to the crucial part of meta-discourses at the mural level in shaping the context for the other dimensions. Consequently, nosotros back up the merits of "deep transitions" scholars and argue that a alter in the values and assumptions of the meta-discourse at the landscape dimension is crucial for successful sustainability transitions (Kanger and Schot 2019; Schot and Kanger 2018; van der Vleuten 2019). Although changes at the meta-soapbox just appear slowly, they are very powerful in shaping the context for the other discursive elements to sally and develop. We suggest that incorporating the discursive landscape dynamics is of import to empathize the socio-technical configuration as a whole. Its systematic empirical analysis may support a more than critical understanding of the values and assumptions driving sustainability transitions, equally is also suggested by Feola (2019) on the office of capitalism, and may allow an commutation between diverse conflicting transition narratives (Luederitz et al. 2017). This systematic analysis may besides inform practical action and transition governance. For example, it could support strategic planning and scenario building following the methods of causal layered analysis (Inayatullah 1998) or at least bring the various values that underlie such concepts equally sustainability back to the cadre of the contend (Machin 2019). Furthermore, the heuristic shows that in that location is a diverseness of niche-constellations possible, based on their level of structuration. Interpretative discourse analysis and transition inquiry are aligned in the approach that information technology is the niche dimension that forms the main arena for potential modify (Augenstein et al. 2020; Hajer 1995). Nevertheless, in empirical transition inquiry niches are often conceptualized every bit innovations that are completely new to the system (Smith and Raven 2012). By applying a discursive perspective we can differentiate between alternative discourses based on their relation to the institutionalized soapbox; they may hold marginal narratives, radical narratives, or any course in between. In other words, we argue that alternative discourses need not just be congenital around new ideas, but can likewise ascend from longstanding narratives that never became dominant but are all the same reproduced past sure (weak) discursive agents. Macnaghten et al. (2019), for instance, show that while technologies may be completely new and create a new niche, people may use "modern" also as "ancient" narratives to make sense of them. A discursive perspective may help to capture, likewise empirically, the diverseness of elements and dynamics of a socio-technical system.

Tertiary, the heuristic supports a theoretical conceptualization of discursive lock-in mechanisms and points out the relevance of a discursive perspective for successful transition acceleration and governance. Edifice farther on the piece of work of Buschman and Oels (2019) and the discursive perspective of a socio-technical system presented in this paper, we anticipate iii self-reinforcing mechanisms that lock-in the institutionalized discourse and its consequent established practices, institutions, and cloth artifacts. In this way, we show that the unchallenged values and assumptions of meta-discourses, incumbents' discursive agency, and narrative co-optation are 3 discursive lock-in mechanisms that need to be addressed when aiming for successful sustainability transitions. The mechanisms testify that transitions are hindered not merely at the regime level, as is oft assumed in transition studies (Geels 2004; Loorbach et al. 2017), only that resistance to change may originate at various degrees of structuration. Consequently, the unlocking of the institutionalized discourse requires a systems perspective, building on a variety of pathways of discursive modify. Additionally, the discursive lock-in mechanisms do non stand alone but need to be understood in the broader socio-technical perspective. In other words, these discursive mechanisms may mutually reinforce each other as well as may be interlinked with cloth, institutional, or behavioral lock-in mechanisms. From a discursive perspective, Buschmann and Oels (2019) argue that "discourse actually underlies lock-in in the realms of infrastructures, institutions, and behavior—it as well connects and aligns them" (p. 11). Future enquiry may analyze to what extend the discursive lock-in mechanisms conceptualized in this paper shape and create lock-in mechanisms in the other arrangement elements. Additionally, Seto et al. (2016) suggests: "efforts to interruption from one blazon of lock-in issue in hardening or compensating resistance to change in other types of lock-in" (p. 427). Therefore, time to come empirical research may create great value in a improve understanding of the interlinkages between lock-in mechanisms in the various system components and assist to grasp the socio-technical arrangement in its complication. We hope this theoretical conceptualization can serve as a baseline for further empirical inquiry of discursive lock-in mechanisms likewise as may support further research on entry points for decision-makers and practitioners to address discursive, institutional, behavioral, and material lock-ins in an integrative mode, a precondition for successful transition governance (Schneidewind and Augenstein 2016).

Nosotros hope that the proposed conceptualization of discursive elements, dynamics, lock-ins, and change pathways in a socio-technical system volition back up transition researchers in applying the total spectrum of theoretical concepts and insights that interpretative discourse analysis has to offer. By providing a review of the core discursive elements, their interactions and dynamics in a socio-technical system, besides as a conceptualization of their self-reinforcing lock-in mechanisms explaining persistent stability from a discursive perspective and three potential pathways to unlock and enable alter, we consider this study a heuristic for new empirical research rather than a new theoretical framework. Nosotros aim to highlight that there are many possible interesting points of commutation betwixt the interpretative soapbox literature and sustainability transition research. Certainly, a fruitful exchange of ideas and insights requires further theoretical and conceptual engagement as well equally empirical applications. Therefore, this paper is to be read and discussed equally a first stride in shifting focus toward a more systematic analysis of discursive elements and dynamics in a socio-technical system, with the aim to enhance the understanding of the dynamics of stability and change and to support a systemic approach to sustainability transition acceleration and governance.

References

• Ampe Yard, Paredis E, Asveld 50, Osseweijer P, Block T (2019) A transition in the Dutch wastewater system? The struggle between discourses and with lock-ins a transition in the Dutch wastewater organisation? J Environ Policy Programme 22:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680275

  Article  Google Scholar

• Arthur WB (1994) Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

  Book  Google Scholar

• Augenstein G, Bachmann B, Egermann M, Hermelingmeier V, Hilger A, Jaeger-Erben M, Kessler A, Lam DPM, Palzkill A, Suski P, von Wirth T (2020) From niche to mainstream: the dilemmas of scaling up sustainable alternatives. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 29:143–147. https://doi.org/x.14512/gaia.29.three.3

  Article  Google Scholar

• Bäckstrand Thou, Lövbrand E (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate alter: contested discourses of ecological modernization, dark-green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob Environ Polit six:l–75. https://doi.org/ten.1162/glep.2006.6.1.fifty

  Article  Google Scholar

• Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday and Company, New York

  Google Scholar

• Bosman R, Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki Northward, Pistorius T (2014) Discursive government dynamics in the Dutch free energy transition. Environ Innov Soc Transit xiii:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.07.003

  Article  Google Scholar

• Buschmann P, Oels A (2019) The overlooked role of discourse in breaking carbon lock-in: the case of the German free energy transition. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 10:i–14. https://doi.org/ten.1002/wcc.574

  Article  Google Scholar

• Carstensen MB, Schmidt VA (2016) Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. J Eur Public Policy 23:318–337. https://doi.org/x.1080/13501763.2015.1115534

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Dryzek JS (2013) The politics of the globe: ecology discourses. Oxford University Printing, Oxford

  Google Scholar

• Fairclough North (2012) Critical Discourse Analysis. Int Adv Eng Technol 7:452–487. https://doi.org/10.9753/icce.v16.105

  Article  Google Scholar

• Feola G (2019) Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: time for a disquisitional turn? Environ Innov Soc Transit 35:241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.005

  Article  Google Scholar

• Feola G, Jaworska Due south (2019) One transition, many transitions? A corpus-based report of societal sustainability transition discourses in four civil society's proposals. Sustain Sci 14:1643–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0631-9

  Article  Google Scholar

• Ferguson P (2015) The green economy agenda: business as usual or transformational soapbox ? Environ Polit 24:17–37. https://doi.org/x.1080/09644016.2014.919748

  Article  Google Scholar

• Fischer F, Forester J (1993) The argumentative turn in policy and planning. Duke University Press, Durham

  Book  Google Scholar

• Fischer 50-B, Newig J (2016) Importance of actors and bureau in sustainability transitions: a systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability eight:476–497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476

  Article  Google Scholar

• Fischer F, Torgerson D, Durnová A, Orsini Thou (2015) Introduction to critical policy studies. Handbook of ciritical policy studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

  Google Scholar

• Foucault M (1972) The archeology of knowledge. Tavistock Publications Limited, London

  Google Scholar

• Foxon TJ (2014) Technological lock-in and the function of innovation. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, Neumayer E (eds) Handbook of sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 140–152

  Google Scholar

• Fuenfschilling L, Truffer B (2014) The structuration of socio-technical regimes: conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res Policy 43:772–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.ten.010

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Fuenfschilling Fifty, Truffer B (2016) The coaction of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems - An assay of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technol Forecast Soc Change 103:298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.eleven.023

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gailing L (2016) Transforming energy systems by transforming power relations. Insights from dispositive thinking and governmentality studies. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 29:243–261. https://doi.org/ten.1080/13511610.2016.1201650

  Article  Google Scholar

• Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights most dynamics and modify from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39:495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

  Article  Google Scholar

• Geels FW (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult Soc 31:21–40. https://doi.org/x.1177/0263276414531627

  Article  Google Scholar

• Geels FW, Verhees B (2011) Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945–1986). Technol Forecast Soc Change 78:910–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.004

  Article  Google Scholar

• Geels FW, Berkhout F, Van Vuuren DP (2016) Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nat Clim Chang 6:576–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2980

  Article  Google Scholar

• Grinning J, Rotmans J, Schot J (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative modify. Routledge, New York

  Book  Google Scholar

• Hajer M (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernisation and the policy process. Clarendon Press, Oxford

  Google Scholar

• Hajer M (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practises, pregnant. In: Van den Brink Thou, Metze T (eds) Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Inquiry, Utrecht, pp 65–76

  Google Scholar

• Hajer Thousand, Versteeg Due west (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. J Environ Policy Plan 7:175–184

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hermwille L (2016) The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions-Fukushima and the energy regimes of Nippon, Frg, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci xi:237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.xi.001

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Inayatullah Southward (1998) Causal layered analysis: poststructuralism as method. Futures thirty:815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X

  Article  Google Scholar

• Isoaho K, Karhunmaa Thou (2019) A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions. Energy Policy 128:930–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.043

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kanger L, Schot J (2019) Deep transitions: theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical alter. Environ Innov Soc Transit 32:7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.006

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Kaufmann M, Wiering Thousand (2021) The office of discourses in understanding institutional stability and modify: an analysis of Dutch flood gamble governance. Glob Environ Chang 44:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1935222

  Article  Google Scholar

• Keller R (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Hum Stud 34:43–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9175-z

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Keller R (2012) Doing soapbox research: an introduction for social scientists. Sage, London

  Google Scholar

• Kern F (2011) Ideas, institutions, and interests: Explaining policy divergence in fostering "system innovations" towards sustainability. Environ Programme C 29:1116–1134. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1142

  Article  Google Scholar

• Klitkou A, Bolwig S, Hansen T, Wessberg N (2015) The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for road transport. Environ Innov Soc Transit 16:22–37. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.eist.2015.07.005

  Article  Google Scholar

• Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo East, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F, Fünfschilling Fifty, Hess D, Holtz K, Hyysalo S, Jenkins K, Kivimaa P, Martiskainen M, Mcmeekin A, Mühlemeier MS, Nykvist B, Pel B, Raven R, Rohracher H, Sandén B, Schot J, Sovacool B, Turnheim B, Welch D, Wells P (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transit 31:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kotilainen K, Aalto P, Valta J, Rautiainen A, Kojo K, Sovacool BK (2019) From path dependence to policy mixes for Nordic electric mobility: Lessons for accelerating hereafter transport transitions. Policy Sci 52:573–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11077-019-09361-iii

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kriechbaum Thousand, Posch A, Hauswiesner A (2021) Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations well-nigh renewable energy in Germany. Res Policy fifty:104262. https://doi.org/x.1016/J.RESPOL.2021.104262

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lang S, Blum Thousand, Leipold S (2019) What future for the voluntary carbon offset market after Paris? An explorative study based on the Discursive Bureau Approach. Clim Policy nineteen:414–426. https://doi.org/x.1080/14693062.2018.1556152

  Article  Google Scholar

• Leipold S (2021) Transforming ecological modernization 'from inside' or perpetuating it? The round economy as EU ecology policy narrative. Environ Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1868863

  Article  Google Scholar

• Leipold Southward, Winkel G (2016) Carve up and conquer-Discursive bureau in the politics of illegal logging in the United States. Glob Environ Chang 36:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.006

  Article  Google Scholar

• Leipold Due south, Winkel G (2017) Discursive agency: (re-) conceptualizing actors and practices in the assay of discursive policymaking. Policy Stud J 45:510–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12172

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Leipold Due south, Sotirov M, Frei T, Winkel Thou (2016) Protecting "first globe" markets and "third world" nature: the politics of illegal logging in Australia, the European Marriage and the United States. Glob Environ Chang 39:294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.005

  Article  Google Scholar

• Leipold Due south, Feindt PH, Winkel Grand, Keller R (2019) Soapbox assay of environmental policy revisited: traditions, trends, perspectives. J Environ Policy Program 21:445–463. https://doi.org/x.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462

  Article  Google Scholar

• Leipold Due south, Petit-Boix A, Luo A, Helander H, Simoens M, Ashton Due west, Babbitt C, Bala A, Bening C, Birkved M, Blomsma F, Boks C, Boldrin A, Deutz P, Domenech T, Ferronato Due north, Gellego-Schmid A, Giurco D, Hobson K, Husgafvel R, Isenhour C, Kriipsalu Yard, Masi D, Mendoza JMF, Milios L, Niero M, Pant D, Pauliuk S, Pieroni One thousand, Richter J, Saidani One thousand, Smol Chiliad, Talens Pieró 50, Van Ewijk Due south, Vermeulen Due west, Wiedenhofer D, Xue B (2021) Lessons, narratives and research directions for a sustainable circular economy. Researchsquare. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-429660/v1

  Article  Google Scholar

• Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki Northward, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions enquiry: transforming science and do for societal modify. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ

  Article  Google Scholar

• Luederitz C, Abson DJ, Audet R, Lang DJ (2017) Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustain Sci 12:393–407. https://doi.org/x.1007/s11625-016-0414-0

  Article  Google Scholar

• Luo A, Zuberi K, Liu J, Perrone Yard, Schnepf S, Leipold Southward (2021) Why common interests and commonage activity are not plenty for ecology cooperation–Lessons from the China-EU cooperation discourse on circular economy. Glob Environ Chang 71:102389. https://doi.org/ten.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2021.102389

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Machin A (2019) Changing the story? The discourse of ecological modernisation in the European Spousal relationship. Environ Polit 28:208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1549780

  Article  Google Scholar

• Macnaghten P, Davies SR, Kearnes M (2019) Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: a narrative approach. J Environ Policy Programme 21:504–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110

  Article  Google Scholar

• Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Marquardt J, Nasiritousi North, Marquardt J (2021) Imaginary lock-ins in climatic change politics: the challenge to envision a fossil-gratuitous future challenge to envision a fossil-free future. Environ Polit 00:one–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1951479

  Article  Google Scholar

• Münch S (2015) Interpretative policy-analyse: eine Einführung. Springer, Berlin

  Google Scholar

• Roberts JCD (2017) Discursive destabilisation of socio-technical regimes: Negative storylines and the discursive vulnerability of historical American railroads. Energy Res Soc Sci 31:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.031

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Rosenbloom D (2018) Framing low-carbon pathways: a discursive assay of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out of coal-fired power in Ontario. Environ Innov Soc Transit 27:129–145. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.eist.2017.11.003

  Article  Google Scholar

• Rosenbloom D, Berton H, Meadowcroft J (2016) Framing the sunday: a discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario. Can Res Policy 45:1275–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.012

  Article  Google Scholar

• Schneidewind U, Augenstein K (2016) Three schools of transformation thinking: The impact of ideas, institutions, and technological innovation on transformation processes. Gaia 25:88–93. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.7

  Article  Google Scholar

• Schot J, Kanger L (2018) Deep transitions: emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Res Policy 47:1045–1059. https://doi.org/ten.1016/j.respol.2018.03.009

  Article  Google Scholar

• Scrase JI, Ockwell DG (2010) The function of discourse and linguistic framing furnishings in sustaining high carbon free energy policy: an accessible introduction. Energy Policy 38:2225–2233. https://doi.org/x.1016/J.ENPOL.2009.12.010

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sengul One thousand (2019) Critical discourse analysis in political communication inquiry: a case written report of right-wing populist soapbox in Australia. Commun Res Pract 5:376–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1695082

  Article  Google Scholar

• Seto KC, Davis SJ, Mitchell RB, Stokes EC, Unruh G, Urge-Vorsatz D (2016) Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:425–452. https://doi.org/ten.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934

  Article  Google Scholar

• Simoens MC, Leipold Southward (2021) Trading radical for incremental modify: the politics of a circular economy transition in the German packaging sector. J Environ Policy Programme. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1931063

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Smith A, Raven R (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 41:1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sovacool BK, Hess DJ (2017) Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc Stud Sci 47:703–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717709363

  Article  Google Scholar

• Stone D (1989) Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Polit Sci Q 104:281–300

  Article  Google Scholar

• Turnheim B, Berkhout F, Geels F, Hof A, McMeekin A, Nykvist B, van Vuuren D (2015) Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob Environ Chang 35:239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.010

  Article  Google Scholar

• van der Vleuten E (2019) Radical change and deep transitions: Lessons from Europe's infrastructure transition 1815–2015. Environ Innov Soc Transit 32:22–32. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.eist.2017.12.004

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Williams JM (2020) Discourse inertia and the governance of transboundary rivers in Asia. Earth Syst Gov iii:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100041

  Article  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the financial back up by the German Federal Ministry of Didactics and Inquiry, grant number 031B0018, as part of the research group "Circulus—Opportunities and challenges of transition to a sustainable round bio-economic system". Lea Fuenfschilling gratefully acknowledges funding from the Swedish Transformative Innovation Policy Platform funded by VINNOVA, grant no 2017-01600.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Writer information

Affiliations

1. Chair of Societal Transition and Round Economy, Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

   Machteld Catharina Simoens

2. Eye for Innovation, Inquiry and Competence in the Learning Economic system, Lund University, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

   Lea Fuenfschilling

3. Section of Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Inquiry–UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Deutschland

   Sina Leipold

4. Chair of Environmental Politics, University of Jena, Bachstr. 18k, 07743, Jena, Germany

   Sina Leipold

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of the report. MS took the pb in the investigation and the writing of the manuscript. LF and SL provided substantial input during the development, assay, and estimation, and critically reviewed and edited the text. All authors gave their final approval to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Machteld Catharina Simoens.

Boosted information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by David J. Abson, Leuphana Universitat Luneburg, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Open up Admission This commodity is licensed under a Artistic Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in whatsoever medium or format, equally long as y'all requite appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Artistic Commons licence, and point if changes were fabricated. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Artistic Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If textile is non included in the article'south Artistic Eatables licence and your intended utilize is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted employ, yous will demand to obtain permission direct from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/four.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Well-nigh this commodity

Cite this article

Simoens, M.C., Fuenfschilling, L. & Leipold, S. Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems: an overview and a fashion frontwards. Sustain Sci (2022). https://doi.org/x.1007/s11625-022-01110-v

Download citation

• Received: 27 April 2021

• Accepted: 03 February 2022

• Published: 21 Feb 2022

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01110-5

Keywords

• Discourse
• Agency
• Narrative
• Lock-in
• Sustainability transitions
• Transformation

fontenotornat1938.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-022-01110-5