Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
this topic, emphasis on transitions in the making at regional level necessitated the collection
of empirical field research data, in addition to document analysis.
There is academic support for utilizing the MLP in the ex-post study of emerging
transitions. One exception to the historical use of the MLP perspective is Elzen
et al.
(2011), whose recent work utilizing the MLP includes key informant interviews to
complement document analysis in a study of socio-technical transition within the pork
industry. Similar to the research presented in this topic, Elzen
et al.
's study focused on
a transition in the making, integrating document analysis with empirical field research.
However, Elzen
et al.
's paper contains only a very brief description of methods.
Conceptualizations of transition management and strategic niche management more
commonly include field research. This reflects the research emphasis on steering ongoing
transitions. In undertaking the research, scientists either undertake historical analysis of
large scale transitions or focus-in on specific processes or actors in a combination of
document review and field research (e.g. Späth and Rohracher, 2010; Budde
et al
., 2012;
Musiolik
et al.
, 2012). Even so, a very limited description of methods is usually provided
by these authors in their research publications. As noted by Genus and Coles (2008), the
lack of methodological description, particularly when using historical methods, introduces
the potential for considerable analyst influence on the key points identified. We suggest that
given the particular emphasis on sustainability transitions, specifically the intent for
findings to inform active steering of transitions, more attention needs to be paid to the
empirical and analytical methods underpinning the recommendations arising from these
research processes.
The study of
emerging
transitions in different regional contexts poses a number of
methodological challenges, in particular:
How can we be certain that the observed phenomenon is not just an incremental
change or a mere change in ordinary practices but rather the beginning of a radical
transition?
Where does the geographic specificity of regional characteristics fit within the
MLP?
How can the components of the three levels of the MLP model be distinguished in
practice, particularly when they occur at different spatial scales (e.g. how can the
area of overlap 'between' a niche and regime be assessed? Where does a niche
occur, only at the 'micro' level, or within a regime as well?)
How can emerging transition processes be compared across European countries and
regions (as niches by definition are fluid and highly varied - how can a basis for
comparison be established)?
Lack of conceptualization of geographic scale and space is another criticism of the
MLP (Lawhon and Murphy, 2011). Besides the 'functional'/non-spatial character of basic
concepts of the MLP, such as the regime, criticism centres on the fact that transitions are
basically conceived as phenomena taking place along one dimension - time - whilst space
is an exogenous background which does not actively contribute to the process of change in
the socio-technical configuration. In addition, although a transition is by definition a radical
change of a whole socio-technical configuration, the emphasis in the literature to date has
been on transitions which have a strong 'technical' dimension. In particular, the niche is
typically defined as a 'technological niche'. Although technology is clearly important to
Search WWH ::
Custom Search