Stonking paper, that has helped me understand the various theoretical options available for understanding/describing transitions, (evolutionary, relational and durational), and some of their strengths and weaknesses. Yes, the paper does underplay that the MLP is shot through with durational perspective to make a cleaner (if not clearer) distinction, but nonetheless, hugely impressive and useful.
Garud, R. and Gehman, J. 2012. Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy, Vol. 41 pp. 980-995.
There are heaps of important bits of theory and empirics (the two imbricate, obvs). Here’s one (I am a sucker for new words, especially frenchies).
The relational approach also highlights the importance of metrologies, or the network of humans, devices and calculations through which sustainability is measured, and by extension, debated and demonstrated. Not everything can be accounted for.
Accordingly, a key question concerns what is internalized and accounted for in these calculations. For instance, how many degrees of separation between actors do we consider in our deliberations or what constitutes an externality? It is through such bracketing that sustainability is defined and performed.
(Garud and Gehman, 2012: 991)
PS Turnheim et al 2015 is amazeballs too-
Turnheim, B. Berkhout, F. Geels, F. Hof, A. McMeekin, A. Nykvist, B. and van Vuuren, D. 2015. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 35 pp. 239-53.
Leave a Reply