Category Archives: our doomedness

Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities

Ooh yeah!!! Academia that is useful!!

Zollo, M and Winter, S. 2002. Deliberate learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science, Vol. 13, (3), pp.339-351.

This fantastic article talks about

“the role of (1) experience accumulation, (2) knowledge articulation, and (3) knowledge codification processes in the evolution of dynamic, as well as operational, routines.” (Zollo and Winter, 2002: 339)

You can have lots of experience, but if you don’t think about it, it isn’t learning.  There’s that anecdote about someone saying to Shane Warne “Well, Monty Panesar is getting some experience – he’s played 30 tests” and Warne saying “No, he’s played the same Test thirty times”.  Ouch.

Zollo and Winter are modifying the concept of ‘dynamic capabilities‘ a bit, away from it only happening in conditions of rapidly changing environments to a more conscious effort (“deliberate learning”!)

Teece et al. (1997) define the concept of “dynamic capabilities” as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (p. 516). While this suggests something of what dynamic capabilities are for and how they work, it leaves open the question of where they come from. Also, the definition seems to require the presence of “rapidly changing environments” for the existence of dynamic capabilities, but firms obviously do integrate, build, and reconfigure their competencies even in environments subject to lower rates of change. We propose the following alternative:

DEFINITION. A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness.
(Zollo and Winter, 2002: 340)

They are interested in the mechanisms of “collective Competence

We therefore direct attention to a second mechanism of development of collective competence, the process through which implicit knowledge is articulated through collective discussions, debriefing sessions, and performance evaluation processes.
(Zollo and Winter, 2002: 341)

They put forward the proposition that

” Dynamic capabilities emerge from the coevolution of tacit experience accumulation processes with explicit knowledge articulation and codification activities.”
(Zollo and Winter, 2002: 344)

They have some good words of warning for the timing of codification –

First, codification should aim at developing and transferring “know why” as well as “know how.” We have emphasized that codification efforts provide an occasion for valuable efforts to expose action-performance links. Aiming at process prescriptions alone forfeits this advantage and in- creases risks of inappropriate application. Second, codification efforts should be emphasized at an appropriate time in the course of learning. Attempted prematurely, codification efforts risk hasty generalization from limited experience, with attendant risks of inflexibility and negative transfer of learning.
(Zollo and Winter, 2002: 349)

But look The trouble is, that learning – knowledge acquisition, codification and then (which they don’t really talk about) overthrowing/massively modifying zombie repertoires – is a painful and disruptive process.  And if there is no selection pressure, because you basically live in the Smugosphere– then the chances of actual learning are pretty damn low.

 

There’s heaps of great stuff in this article, and I will be raiding it for various purposes as the carbon accumulates and the window of opportunity shrinks.  #carpethediems

Barriers to learning – good article

Just read this –

Elliot, D., Smith. D. and McGuinness, M. 2000. Exploring the failure to learn: crises and the barriers to learning. Review of Business, 21, 3/4 pp.17-24.

Dead useful for something I am investigating at the moment.  There are lots of juicy bits.  Though the authors don’t use the term,  they are basically talking about people (and organisations) having ‘helmet fires‘.

Here’s a quote, with numbers added and [comments in brackets]

Many barriers to learning have been identified within the crisis management literature. These include:

  1. rigidity of core beliefs, values and assumptions [see also ‘smugosphere’ and the hierarchy of deep core and core policy beliefs within Advocacy Coalition Framework]
  2. ineffective communication and information difficulties [classic, when communication is top-down and regimented – “only the registrar can talk to the doctor, only the chief nurse can talk to the registrar…” #recipefordeath]
  3. failure to recognise similar or identical situations that happen elsewhere (“isomorphic” properties) [“but that disaster happened years ago, in another country, of which we know little…”]
  4. maladaptation, threat minimization and environmental shifts
  5. cognitive narrowing and event fixation [see also helmet fires]
  6. centrality of expertise, denial and disregard of outsiders [“you’re not from my tribe/you’re insufficiently obsequious, so piss off.”]
  7. lack of corporate responsibility
  8. and focus upon “single-loop” or single-cause learning.

(Elliot et al. 2000:18)

There’s an intriguing reference to United 232

In the aftermath of the accident, other flight crews placed in a simulator all failed to cope with the demands of the event.
(Elliot et al. 2000:20) [Just googled this]

And ‘after action reviews’ are often simply arse-covering and the drafting of fantasy documents

However, during the crisis of legitimation, the construction of reality is often achieved through the “lens of the powerful” – as those in positions of power seek to (re)write history to serve their own short-and long-term interests. Such an environment may provide major barriers to learning, which must be overcome if learning is to be effective and incubation avoided.
(Elliot et al. 2000:21)

 

Basically, we’re chimps.  If our identity gets threatened, we circle the wagons, change the subject, shoot the troublesome priest and take credit for the good luck that precedes the next disaster, which is of course, not our fault…

See also Deborah Stone’s 1989 article on causal stories and the formation of policy agendas

 

The Smugosphere – an academic citation

So, I have been writing cynically about the “smugosphere” – that place where normal rules of performance assessment to not apply because people are Doing Good For The Cause.

And I just kind of stumbled on a very very interesting paper by one Wolfgang Seibel;

Seibel, W. 1996. Successful Failure: An Alternative View on Organizational Coping. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 39, (8), pp. 1011- 1024.

He looks at the reasons behind the continued and tolerated ‘under-performance’ of a shelter for victims of domestic violence and a sheltered workshop for people with intellectual disabilities.

Here are some quotes-

In the business world, though, the hard indicators of performance, namely, figures on profit and losses, will ultimately unveil the truth. But as long as measurement of organizational performance is blurry, information asymmetries between principals and agents may persist. For instance, if the quality of services is hard to evaluate because either reasonable scales of measurement do not exist or the person who purchases a good or service is not the consumer (as in the case of day care services)., the principals have no sound basis for their judgment on performance. Under such circumstances, the agent’s incentive to tell the truth about poor performance is substantially weakened…. Consequently, low-performance organizations may persist or, even worse, due to lower production costs, they may supersede high-performance organisations.
(Seibel, 1996:1012)

Efficient management would publicly reveal the ubiquitousness [sic] of a phenomenon that is subject to public reticence. It would remind a male-dominated public how recklessly males are treating women, and it would remind society of the inappropriate funding for those institutions that take care of what, presumably, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to violence against women. Why should a male-dominated public be interested in such kind of efficiency.
(Seibel, 1996:1016)

 

To acknowledge openly how poorly [women’s shelters] are performing would cause serious cognitive dissonances. According to different ideological stances, it would either mean to acknowledge that a serious societal problem is rather insufficiently being dealt with or that something that in one’s own perception is not a serious problem at all is subject to a waste of money and human energy
(Seibel, 1996:1016)

 

Efficient… management would put this arrangement into jeopardy. It would destabilize existing networks as well as undermine the role of board members as influential gate keepers in terms of resource mobilization…. Whether or not one of the board members would blow the whistle would be essentially uncertain. This kind of mistrust and uncertainty would destroy the basis of networking. Accordingly, board members must be essentially interested in sustaining the illusion that decent work is being done.
(Seibel, 1996:1017)

 

Presumably, interests and ideologies are mutually dependent. The interest in low degrees of organizational performance causes the need for justifying ideas. But the ideas would not create a stable veil of ignorance if they were not based on interests. Thus ignorance itself is what those providing resources have to be interested in. One can hardly imagine permanent failure without demand for ignorance.
(Seibel, 1996:1019)

 

Plausible ideologies are available that protect the organization against the ‘inappropriate’ application of efficiency and accountability standards, thus mitigating the cognitive dissonances caused by the gap between poor performance and the standards of organizational efficiency and accountability.
(Seibel, 1996:1020)

Efficient management may not only jeopardize informal social networks, it may also make the organization independent from single sources of monetary support. Such attempts to reach flexibility and independence are likely to violate the interests of those who primarily use the organization for networking, because these interests are best being served through enduring dependence of a given non-profit organization from a given set of sponsors.
(Seibel, 1996:1021)

 

Excellent and cynical stuff – and he references an article which I then went and read (and it is a corker).

Meyer J and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations. Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-262.

Why we are toast: Aussie Corporate perspectives on #climate innovation

Mikler, J and Harrison, N. 2013. Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives on the Role of Government. Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol. 59, (3), pp.414-428.

Nothing I have learnt in the last two years of reading a lot (no, even by my OCD*-ish standards) has so much as grazed – let alone dented – my sense that our species is toast, sooner than most folks think.    And one of the many latest things I’ve read is the above paper.

Mikler and Harrison got access (on basis of anonymity) to a bunch of Australian corporate executives, at or nearish the top of the food chain.  As you’d expect from ‘agentic deadlock’, they blame the government for not setting the rules of the game.  Believe it or not (and some will not), I have some sympathy for the view – though of course other corporates have been busy white-anting [that’s Australian for ‘under-mining’] all efforts at bringing in predictable/strong rules.  For gory details, see Clive Hamilton’s Scorcher and Guy Pearse’s High and Dry especially.

Here are some quotes (especially ones that contain quotes from interviewees)

Given the lack of a business case for climate innovation purely on the basis of GHG emission reductions, all interviewees stressed that those of the radical variety in particular, entailing the entire redesign of processes or products, were highly unlikely without strong regulatory requirements and substantial support on the part of government. To one degree or another, they echoed the sentiment that “regulatory is by far the strongest driver” of GHG emission reductions and that “regulations drive innovation”.

(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:421)

[compare with 2006 letter to Blair from 14 top execs in UK]

Echoing the point made earlier about price inelasticity of demand, it was interesting to note that nearly all the interviewees said the tax needed to be much higher, with one commenting that although it was high enough to reduce profitability it was not high enough to substantively drive innovation. One interviewee put the case thus:

Either you put it in as a token leadership issue, and awareness issue at something like $10 a tonne which we could easily cope with, or you put it in at $60 or $70 which would actually drive innovation and change. Putting it in at $23 is completely useless, achieves nothing in terms of drivers for innovation and just costs the economy.
(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:422)

The time frames are all wrong, of course.

Another point made by all interviewees was that much more was required of government to drive climate innovation, especially that of the more radical variety. As one interviewee put it, “climate innovation has got to be long term, so there’s got to be a strategy and it’s not about short-term programs”. Given that more radical climate innovation involves substantial capital expenditure and a five to eight year commitment at least, with the prospect of uncertain future returns over a longer period of time after this, “if your legislation is changing on a six monthly basis you just can’t do it”.

(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:422)

And reading this in 2016 makes me cry (with hollow laughter)

It was sobering, to say the least, to hear all of them view the potential for a change of government at the 2013 election with nothing less than a sense of dread. As one interviewee put it, “we’ve got Mr Abbott making a blood oath to repeal the carbon tax, and we’re not too sure what that really means”. Another said “the conservative governments will deliberately stuff it up so that in an election year nothing is working, regardless of the fact it will just mean a few more years of the pain for everybody”. Yet another said “a change of government would be a disaster”.
(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:423)

And it’s the customers fault, natch.

All interviewees stated, often quite bluntly, that they perceived no business case for climate innovation specifically. This is because they did not believe consumers were sufficiently demanding less GHG emissions-intensive products, unless they can be provided at the same or lower cost. With the costs and risks involved in climate innovation for such products, there was therefore limited incentive to invest in them.

As one interviewee said, “the options around the consumer driving it are fairly limited”, while another noted that “we can’t build a model around […] the top two per cent of consumers who will buy green products”.
(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:424)

Hey, guess what. The market will not provide. Neither will the state.  Ooh, here comes the fricking apocalypse.

The sentiment of all interviewees was summed up by one who said “if it’s not supported by government, then they vote with their feet, the public vote with their feet, and whatever’s most cost efficient they’ll move to”. In the absence of this support, none of the interviewees saw market imperatives for climate innovation, either now or in the future, despite raised awareness. Indeed, one said that “what the community expects is that government will reflect their attitudes because they’re not going to pay for companies to reflect it”, while in a similar vein another said that “you can’t afford to create awareness. It costs too much money. The very best way of initiating change is through government regulations.”
(Mikler and Harrison, 2013:424)

This is a good paper. The authors are well into the whole Varieties of Capitalism stuff, (see their book), and this article, based on interviews within a Liberal Market Economy called Australia (aka quarry with a state apparatus attached) is a depressing companion to books by Clive Hamilton, Guy Pearse, Philip Chubb and Maria Taylor.

And once you’re done with them, then these beckon-

Fred Block, “Swimming Against the Current: the Rise of a Hidden Developmental State in the United States”, Politics and Society, Vol. 36, 2 (2008), pp.169-206;

Fred Block and Matthew R.Keller, “Where do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the US Economy, 1970-2006”, Socio-economic Review, Vol. 7 (2009), pp.459-483;

Fred Block and Matthew R. Keller, State of Innovation: The US Government’s Role in Technology Development (Boulder, 2011).

*I know I am probably mis-using the term, but not by so much.  Why do I read so much? A host of reasons from my upbringing, I suspect [as if you could ever say for sure!]. To do with retreat, with a sense of control, physiological [autonomic] responses, then because … oh, who knows. A post for a very slow news day.

Adventures in policy concepts…

Public policy for fun and … profit?  I’ve been on a major reading binge over the last month or so (Policy Studies Journal, I’m looking at you).

Most of that has been around three theories/frameworks/models – Advocacy Coalitions Framework, Punctuated Equilibrium and Multiple Streams.

Why? To try to test/extend the Dialectical Issue LifeCycle Model, especially in its phase 3 to phase 4 shift (if you’ve got 10 minutes, you could read this).

And what I realised was that it would be a “public good contribution” to my fellow early career (cough, cough) researchers, AND useful to me, if a website were built.

Or rather, a bunch of interlinked webpages came into existence.  A very patient friend of mine taught me some drupal etc, but for this, I just relied on wordpress and a certain (unusually methodical) approach to linking forward and back.

Next steps – to write the story of Australia and climate policy, 1974-2015 using each of these three theories in turn.  #livingthedream.

Meanwhile, you can find an alphabetical list of the policy concepts (it will be updated over time) with links to individual pages, here.

I might also improve my cardboard and coloured-paper models, ahead of a powerpoint presentation tomorrow, at which I hope to get heckled for long-windedness and conspiracy theories….

Ways to (D)Phil your brain – SPRU’s 22nd student conference

What follows is in no way an “official” (nor even necessarily entirely accurate) account of the two day event for PhD students at the Science and Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex.  First off, thanks and congratulations to the 1st year cohort of students who organised it.

 

The Monday started with brief opening remarks by Prof Johan Schot, who remarked that the DPhil Days – this was the 22nd – were an important institution, allowing networking, learning and and the creation a positive atmosphere. The ‘theme’ for this one was plurality  – spanning divides between constructivist and positivist perspectives, qualitative and quantitative research, academia and policy making.    He called on us to go beyond the “one best way” models of modernism (19th and 20th century).

He then introduced Carlota Perez, who gave an overview of her work, arguing that “the environment is not the problem… it’s the solution.” (See her Green Alliance blog post on a similar topic.)

Perez stated that she was addressing us not as DPhil students but as citizens of a troubled world – saying se would talk about what is happening, why it’s happening, and (how) can we overcome the daunting problems we face (unemployment, inequality, secular stagnation, the robotics revolution (hello Skynet!), the financial world becoming a casino.  She referred to people and companies with “so much money they don’t pay any taxes” and referred to “austericide”

Three major challenges were the focus of her talk – global warming, pollution and waste disposal, and insufficient resources.

She said that to solve these is the best way to solve all the others, because they’re all caused by

  1. the legacy of previous mass production revolution
  2. the decoupling of finance from production
  3. political and economic ideology inherited from bubble times.

Perez cautioned that she was not advocating degrowth, but green growth, from labour saving to resource saving,  increasing the proportion of intangibles in GDP and increasing the durability of ‘tangibles’. This, she said, would lead to an explosion in employment around rental, maintenance, repair.  She envisioned a world where we move from possession to access to goods, where we move from aspiration for possessions to health, creativity, experience and networking.

The key to all of this is… Information and Communication Technologies.

Perez then looked briefly at  previous transitions and turning “points” (she pointed out that these points are sometimes prolonged), based on her extensive previous work. These revolutionary points are distinct from Schumpeter’s and not based on GDP.

These were the industrial revolution (machines, factories, canals dating from 1771 onwards, the age of steam (coal, iron, railways, 1829), the age of steel and heavy engines (this one leads to a global economy, (includes electrical, chemical, civil engineering (bridges etc) and naval developments, dating from 1875), the Age of the Automobile (from 1908 onwards, Model T Ford and so on) and finally the age of the infotech revoluiton (dating from 1971, with Intel’s microprocessor).

A further revolution – biotecn, nanotech, bioelectronics etc, is gathering pace.

For Perez, each has led to a techno-economic paradigm shift, with far reaching transfer of changes in producing, consuming, working.  This of course, doesn’t happen quickly, gently, or without resistance…  For each surge there is  two periods – an instillation phase and a deployment phase. As the paradigms battle, concentration of investment in new technologies grows, income inequality grows.  (To be honest, some of this reminded me of Alvin Toffler‘s The Third Wave, and his later [1990s] observations about de-massification of production and consumption. This is not of course automatically a Bad Thing).

Perez said that there was a need for clear direction from government, to aid the convergence of innovation and create dynamic demand for the newly installed capacity. She pointed to the actions of the British state around the Napoleonic war, the creation of urbanisation and world trade conditions, the global infrastructure of transcontinental rail-roads and canals, suburbanisation and the cold war and… finally the “global greening of production and lifestyles” [As a member of the Sustainable Consumption Institute, I should be cheerleading this, but I have an irreducible scepticism].

For Perez, we need a new (green) Keynesianism, but that to take advantage of these turning points (periods of strong political confrontations and pressures) there is a need for “enlightened and bold political leaders” who know what to do and make the shift. [I wonder if this strays too close to advocating the Great Man of History – Roosevelt did what he did because he both could and had to thanks to serious pressure from organised labour (unions) and the collapse of the credibility of the old system.]

Perez pointed to the admission by Schumpeter, arch-anti-state guy, who grudgingly admitted that the Federal Housing Act of 1937 (6?) was the necessary impetus to create cheap prefab housing [see here], and that the market alone would not have made this technological advance. In the context of this and the usefulness of the Welfare State (unemployment insurance enabling demand to continue at high and predictable rates) she pointed to the car and radio industry and their innovation of hire-purchase/installment plans, with banks coming later to this party. [At this point I was thinking of Frederik Pohl’s 1954 novella “The Midas Plague” where Keynesianism and Fordism create a world with so much unstoppable production that all must consume, with the richest allowed to consume as little as they want).

We need to move, according to Perez, from the world of cheap electricity to cheap information, but of course, each paradigm is burdened with the legacy of the previous one.  She gave a lovely quote from Chris Freeman from 1992 – “There are powerful forces in our society…” [watch this space – I will try to track it down]

Questions to her (including from me) were about the developing countries’ role in all this, the impending anthropocene, the military options (killer graphene drones!!) to prevent renewed social democracy, the spatial aspects (e.g. China)

In her answers Perez pointed to the problem that so many policy makers were unable to see the big picture, that environmental catastrophes, financial crises, the rise of the Trumps and Le Pens could all intervene. In addition, current elites were so hyper-mobile that the did not have to worry about the local populations/pay taxes.

Next up was an interesting session from “The Council of Elders” (all of whom protested that the world in which they had become academics was so fundamentally different to what today’s early career researchers faced that any advice would be if not moot, then hedged with profound caveats.)  Nonetheless, 160 years of experience sat in a row in front of us, on the subject of “If I had only known then”….

Professor Ben Martin gave us Ten Commandments (his tongue firmly in his cheek on that framing).  They were

ONE Identify tomorrow’s problem – what willb e the main problem on politicians’ desk next year

Don’t take too long – or you’ll be irrelevant

Beware dimininshing returns in your research (repetition, replication, saturation etc)

TWO Focus on 1 or 2 areas where you have comparative advantage (don’t go too broad too soon, and learn to say no)

THREE Network and collaborate. Seek individuals with complementary skills and knowledge, learn from others.

FOUR Be bold, explore new territory, take risks, speak truth unto power, learn from mistakes, persevere.

FIVE Carpe the diems – don’t die wondering, be prepared for opportunities, and follow those opportunities up

SIX Be clear and succinct, and adjust your style to the audience

SEVEN Invest in the Favour Bank (here Martin referred to Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities).  Make public good contributions to the community

EIGHT Be generous – give credit ot others, especially juniors, identify antecedents.

NINE Do as you would be done unto (when reviewing papers)

TEN Preserve your integrity. In digital age, act on the principle that everything will become known.

 

And a PS Always have a Plan B.

There was then a very interesting panel discussion with Martin, Perez and also Professors Martin Bell and Erik Millstone.  I won’t ascribe any particular bit of advice that I wrote down to a particular individual.

Self-doubt doesn’t go away, the trick is to learn to manage it

Do NOT wait for self doubt to go away before writing your thesis etc. Pursue your topic with energy and enthsuaism

“Screw the REF” (publishe what you feel is important)

Set the trend, don’t follow it.

Be aware of, challenge, attempts to suppress your work, attempts at cesorship.

Find something you are passionate about/”passion matters enormously”

Outsiders can become agenda setters (able to see things insiders can’t)

Link helpfully, lucid and interesting inter-disciplinarity

Finally, on the question of what builds a reputation for inter-disciplinarity

  1. a) sensitivity to disciplines (cultures, norms, languages)

  2. b) openness ot new ideas

  3. generotisy, cite sources, acknowledge where ideas came from

  4. d) willingness to make “public good” contributions

 

Around the writing of theses –

bite off what you can chew (you don’t have to solve all the world’s problems in 70,000 words, and you only need to write one thesis, not three.

You don’t need to write at the same level of detail about everything that seems important.

You can acknowledge and then “park” related but not-crucial debates. This shuts off opportunities for external examiners to find holes.

 

After a well-earned break there was a session with Dr Paula Kivimaa and Dr Gregor Semieniuk on “plurality in research methods” looking at the pros and cons of different research methods (e.g. focus groups) and distinguishing between types of theories (interpretive and predictive)

After lunch there was another useful session, this time on plurality in impacts.

Antony Froggatt of Chatham House gave a compelling account of a recent report on “Changing Climate, Changing Diets” that Chatham House had produced. Advice included

  • Build strong case for action
  • Break down siloes
  • Enhance evidence base for interventions
  • Mobilise national debates

Froggatt’s main point (that I took away, anyway) is for the need for coalitions of the unusual suspects.

Prof Gordon MacKerron followed this with various good advice (this below is what I captured)

  • Don’t assume all impacts are necessarily a good thing!
  • Remember the difference between independent and objective (they overlap, but not always by much!).  Think also in terms of optimal versus absolute independence (i.e. you can be so ‘independent’ that you end up out of touch with agendas)
  • Who do we hope to have an impact on?  Elites (policy makers, powerful sorts), the marginalised (trade unions etc), on scrutinisers.

There are various ways of having an impact that are worth considering.

  • Get media (local, national, international) interested – cultivate journalists, feed them bits of research [of course, journalists come and go…]
  • respond to specific invitations
  • Be involved in an advisory capacity
  • Engage in consultancy (nb beware of over-identification with a funder)
  • act as a n expert witness (this less common, now that public inquiries are no longer so often used to attempt to resolve contentious issues)
  • temporary employment in areas where you might have some influence

More generic advice (from both)

  • Learn to write clearly, briefly about complex issues
  • Form alliances with other actors.
  • Get external people (especially ones trained in the field you will be engaging – eg. Journalism) to look over what has been produced, because they will be able to spot the sorts of things you will be asked.

The final speaker of the day was Doctor Flor Avelino, on the subject of “Contesting Transformational Social Innovation

This is a subject close to my heart (as I made [too?]clear in the Q and A.  Avelino was presenting the work – at the half way stage – of a four year EU funded project with twelve research institutes involving 25ish researchers with backgrounds in Science and Technology Studies, Transition Studies, Innovation, Economic, Environmental studies, Social Psychology, Political Psychology (I may have missed some)

You can find out more here transitsocialinnovation.euand also @TransitSI

They’re aiming to generate conceptual and empirical insights into the whole “new ways of doing/knowing/framing/organising”  consumers/pro-sumers thing.  (Hacker spaces, labs, hubs, hipsters, expensive coffee, blah blah blah). The “underlying assumption is that social innovation contributes to wider trasnformative change and empowers people to deal with change.

So, they’re looking at “narratives of change” and “game-changers” (these co-evolve – perhaps there is something in Discursive Institutionalism of Prof Vivien Schmidt et al that could be of use here?)

For me the key problem (as I made [too] abundantly clear) is that much of this work ends up being guilt-alleviation busy work by the posh end of the smugosphere, engaging in emotathonic   mobilisation rather than movement-building.  Also if you only measure promises (as available via glossy websites and brochures produced at the start of a project, and not the grubby failure at the end) you can end up with a very wrong account of how much is actually changing.  Many of these  so-called “networks” that were established in the giddy days of 2006-8 are basically just vestigial websites and a small clique and claque around the originators now). Also- related – activity is easily measured, but action (and impact) is less so.  But I strongly suspect these sorts of empirical difficulties are actually being dealt with…

Also (!) we’ve been through previous waves of “social innovation” and sometimes they got crushed like bugs (I’m thinking of Stafford Beer and Cybersyn, versus Kissinger and Pinochet)  #nocontest.

All those caveats aside, I really like Avelino’s work, and the working paper titles of the project look fascinating (e.g. “The Institutionalisation of Social Innovation: between Transformation and Capture” by Bonno Pel and Tom Bauler).  Definitely stuff for After I Finish The Thesis (AIFTT). If I try it before I will be skinned alive [literallyby both my supervisors. And probably my external too. And definitely the wife…]

Things to send Dr Avelino

 

Johan Schot was discussant on the Avelino presentation, and had a series of comments and remarks, including

ONE what do we gain by using the notion of social innovation.  He noted that as a trained historian the warning was always “never split social and technical/material”

TWO what IS transformative change? How do actors perceive it? What is then going on at the institutional level? What connections are theere between the narratives of actors and the analytics?   What is the renegotiation of institutional “logics” – for example, ‘streets’ used to be regarded as private space, and are now public space (mostly)

THREE what relationships between these new roles and power relationships.  And is political struggle always productive.

Apologies to Dr Avelino – my brain was well and truly full by this stage in the day’s proceedings.  All I can say is that her answers were clear and interesting, and that she ‘defended’ bits of the project without becoming defensive (an important distinction).

The organisers of the conference had asked one of the professors to do something tricky – to sum up the whole day in a few minutes.  That’s not easy, and demands close attention for prolonged periods, followed by synthesis and clear communication.  On this occasion it was carried off with considerable aplomb by Prof Ed Steinmueller.

He pointed out that the day had begun and ended with “the Big Picture” and that this can be daunting to early career researchers, and make them doubt the point of their (necessarily small at this stage particularly) contribution. However, the Big Picture is nonetheless useful [what Frederic Jameson would call a cognitive map].

He pointed to anxiety about (academic) tribes, but also to the necessity of their existence.

He restated the invocations to passion, persistence, perseverance, seizing the moment and self-doubt (that is a spur, not a cage).
He told us that we have to become entrepreneurs, operators, making a difference. He counselled that it helps to like to other similar people making a difference, that generosity is crucial – academia has features of a gift economy, in which giving is a precondition of receiving.

He reminded us too of more concrete lessons from the day, around the selection of methods, confronting your approach with alternatives, making claims based on evidence within a certain framework.

There was a recapitulation of the advice we’d received on impacts –  cultivating alliances, reputation, timeliness, packaging (concisionexactly as I have done in this blog post, oh yes!), and the journey of the social entrepreneur – of experimentation, and experience that it leads to.

There was just enough time to swig a couple of big glasses of wine before a hired coach took us down to the Olive Branch restaurant in the Lanes.  Great food, more wine, and some jokes. Some of which I can repeat.

  • What do you call a cow with three legs? Lean beef.
  • What do you call a cow with two legs? Extra lean beef.
  • What do you call a deer with short sight? Bad eye deer
  • What do call a deer that needs glasses to function? Very bad eye deer.

We won’t do the ones about the couple in the nursing home, or the three women in the obstetrician’s waiting room, since I’d like to stay on at MBS until I get my PhD….

Day two of the conference was all about the PhD students presenting their work and then getting feedback from each other and the other folks present (including some very very astute professors).
The beginning of the day though, saw brief remarks from Professor Tim Foxon on “how best to learn form others, and presenting our work”.

He mentioned that yesterday he’d been at the launch of the “Energy Systems Catapult”, the latest government scheme to promote innovation and deployment of technology [just don’t mention CCS, ‘kay?!].

Foxon then laid out five thoughts

ONE Challenge Authority (at this point he was pelted with rotten tomatoes and told ‘get off’ – true story).  Foxon said elders don’t always know better, and that we should (re)consider existing frames.

TWO Formulating your research question more clearly will help, especially on what is important, and what is outside the boundary

THREE You can then answer the question with appropriate methods (what quantitiatve tools, what qualitative ones?)
FOUR Accept constructive feedback

FIVE Enjoy your PhD.

The rest of the day was then 22 PhD students presenting their work for 15 to 20 minutes each, in two parallel streams, divided into four sessions.  Obviously you could see only 11, and of the ones I did see, the stand-outs were;

Soazic Elise Wang Sonne, whose work is looking at “Understanding clean fuel adoption in Sub Saharan Africa: Does Woman’s intra-household bargaining power matter?” and

Emily Cox, presenting on “Understanding the intensity of UK policy commitments to nuclear power: the role of perceived imperatives to maintain military nuclear submarine capabilities” –  a possible (and under-explored in the literature) reason for the British state’s renewed enthusiasm for Nuclear Power (hint – it might be to do with maintaining the a talent pool that has the skills needed to keep the engine of those wretchedly expensive and murderous Trident submarines going).

I am going to post a separate piece on what I learned from doing and watching presentations, and listening to the good advice of the chairs.

I skipped out at the end to make sure I could see the wife (#longdistancemarriage), but I am sure the final session and the summing up were as good as what went before.  Kudos to the organisers and the participants, including the chairs of the PhD sessions (a relatively thankless task, I suspect!).  And massive thanks to the facebook friend of a facebook friend, who let me stay on her couch!

 

Things to look up (stuff people mentioned that I didn’t know)

Things to read

America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism by David Noble (casually mentioning it in a room where people had actually READ it was perhaps not my smartest move)

Hookworm and the class struggle…

Wow. It’s almost as if there is a long-running class war where the rich try to demoralise and demean the poor, kick them in the teeth and then blame them for not having a nice smile. I know, I know, crazy conspiracy theory...

“Bringing a condition under human control often poses a challenge to old hierarchies of wealth, privilege, or status. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, many poor rural whites in the South were afflicted with a chronic sickness later discovered to be caused by the hookworm parasite. People with the disease were listless and eventually became slow-witted. Popular belief held that the condition reflected the laziness and lax moral character of the victims. When Charles Stiles demonstrated in 1902 that hookworm was the cause and that the disease could easily be cured with a cheap medicine, he was widely ridiculed in the press for claiming to have discovered the “germ of laziness.” The discovery was resisted because it meant that southern elites had to stop blaming “poor white trash” for their laziness and stupidity and stop congratulating themselves for their superior ability to work hard and think fast – a supposed superiority that served to justify political hierarchy.”38
[38 Deborah A. Stone, The Disabled State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984), 93-94. The history of medicine is full of stories of resistance to discoveries that would make disease controllable. See, for example, Charles Rosenberg, The Cholera Years (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).]
(Stone, 1989:295-6)
Stone, 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly Vol. 104 (2), pp. 281-300

On medical foul-ups, see also: Medical hubris and arrogance leads to iatrogenic agony.