answered: Canada Based. Transition Frameworks Some would argue that ch

  

Canada Based.
Transition Frameworks
Some would argue that change is too complex, random and uncontrollable to be guided. Others argue it can be, but we have not demonstrated the values, skill or co-ordinated intent to do so, and that too many actors in our society benefit from the system as it is and are unwilling to change it. Proponents of sustainable transition believe guided change is difficult, but possible, and we need the right tools to do it well. You have already been exposed to some of those tools in earlier courses and will learn about more as you progress through your program. Transition frameworks are part of that tool box.
Different frameworks have merit for different kinds of investigations and purposes, with different kinds of agents. There are debates in the literature about who agents are, and what power they have, compared to systems and structural changes, to influence change (cf. Fischer and Newig, 2016; Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016; Kohler et al., 2019; Koistinen and Teerikangas, 2021). This debate affects how different transition frameworks have been constructed. The dominant capitalist system (and most mainstream media) likes to focus on individuals rather than groups and systems (think of all the marketing and health messages that focus on you, rather than larger structural forces). Although transition theorists do not discount the power of individuals to have impacts, they understand them as part of larger networks of actors.
Characteristics of a useful transition framework:
identifies a wide range of solutions to wicked and messy problems
more actively directive or normative; guided rather than passively followed
helps to make sense of changes, to identify the changes that best fit the vision
serves as both a guide to action and an indicator of progress.
For any particular change area, it helps to bring together a sense of immediacy and practicality with a vision of the future
Lends itself to blending with our frameworks (most research uses transition frameworks using combinations of them or combines them with frameworks of justice, health promotion and sustainability)
Can be applied across multiple scales, from the local and very specific to the global.
STRATEGIC NICHE MANAGEMENT (SNM)
This framework focuses on grassroots innovations and niches and their contribution to change. The original conception was that sustainable innovation can be triggered with technological niches (protected spaces of experimentation with technology, users and regulatory structures) that, if well constructed, could serve as building blocks for broader shifts to sustainable development. The success of niches can often be explained by their dynamism, continuous innovation and networking. It is now understood, however, that SNM needs to be linked to wider processes of change, that these will not automatically emerge from a niche. Others have found that niches can generate greater shifts if they are compatible with the existing structures and processes in their domain. So, now the thinking is that the deliberative construction and support of a niche can lead to change when they are properly positioned relative to other change areas.
Further reading: Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,20(5), 537–554
How do we know if a transition is successful?
Because transitions are looking to the future, we can’t know for sure they will work, that interventions will achieve what they set out to achieve. Interventions (and their outcomes) will be contested, and the track record of many interventions is poor, but ideally a framework also integrates contestation as a reality of the change process. In other words, success can not simply be assessed based on whether everyone agrees with the changes since achieving sustainability, health and equity will always be contested by those who defend the dominant system. The best that can likely be achieved at each stage of transition is a “resilient success” (McConnell, 2010), whereby the changes are preserved, albeit with regular adjustments and shifts as the transition unfolds, there is generally broad legitimacy and relatively minor contestation of the changes, the participants in the changes largely agree with some disagreements but not sufficiently so to destabilize a coalition acting for change, and the changes are largely supported by the population. In this scenario the outcomes are largely, but not completely, achieved and the benefits distributed as intended, albeit with adjustments required of those most able to adapt to the new realities (typically the more economically powerful).
It is also clear on the policy change side of intervention mixes that major policy mixes will be required to generate success (see Instruments). “[A] policy mix encompasses more than just a combination of policy instruments; it also includes the processes by which such instruments emerge and interact.” (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016). But, unfortunately, there remains much debate in the literature regarding the characterization, implementation, interactions and effectiveness of policy mixes, especially as it relates to sustainable transition. However, a long-term strategic orientation appears to be critical, plus the path to achieve the desired objectives, and some appreciation of how instruments can be put to together to have synergistic impacts on each other. Policy learning in this dynamic context is also very important (Howlett et al., 2010; Rogge and Reichardt, 2016).
There are multiple stages to this process of influencing dominant systems. Starting from a position where the dominant ignores the alternative, viewing it as a tolerable niche activity:
At the first stage of influence, the dominant actors “bad mouth” the alternative, attempting to discredit it among decisions makers and the general public.
At the second, they try to co-opt the alternative, often by buying it up. This is part of the “conventionalization” process, pulling alternatives back to the dominant system (cf. Mount and Smithers, 2014)
At the third, they try to look superficially like the alternative, again through purchase or marketing. This is a further stage in conventionalization.
At the fourth, they partner with the alternative in some way, though the power dynamics of the partnership don’t necessarily favour the alternative.
At the fifth, they start to revamp their supply chain to reflect the values of the alternative. This is when very significant transformation begins.
At the sixth, they start to dismantle themselves so that the restructured dominant system is actually the alternative (ultimate success and long term obviously).
While there are many examples of the early stages of this process, there are only limited cases of the later stages.
There are also false transitions
USING SNM TO FILL THE GIVEN FRAMEWORK. (attached)