Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building

Abstract Large-scale shifts in dominant technologies are the necessary components of a transition toward sustainability. Such shifts are difficult because, in addition to technological innovation, they require changes in the existing institutions, professional norms, belief systems and, in some cases, also lifestyles. In the languages of cognitive and policy sciences, higher order learning on a scale ranging from individuals to professional and business communities, to the society at large, is needed. Higher order learning is especially crucial in the types of innovations that depend mainly on synthesis of existing technologies and know-how to achieve radical reductions in energy and material consumption, as is the case with high performance buildings. One way to facilitate this type of learning is through experimentation with new technologies and services. Drawing on our earlier concept of a Bounded Socio-Technical Experiment, in this paper we propose a four-level conceptual framework for mapping and monitoring the learning processes taking place in a BSTE, and apply it to an empirical case study of a zero-fossil-fuel residential building in Boston. Three major conclusions are that: learning took place both on the individual and team level, that individual learning primarily (but not exclusively) involved changes in problem definitions; and that team learning consisted of participant turnover until congruence in worldviews and interpretive frames was achieved. This case study also shows that we must think of innovating in building design as both a process and a product, and that both must be considered in the future efforts to replicate this building. This study highlights that technological innovation about technology as much as about people, their perceptions, and their interactions with each other and with the material world. Sustainability will not be reached by technology alone, but by deep learning by individuals, groups, professional societies and other institutions.

[1]  Robert L. Hamblin,et al.  Modeling Use Diffusion , 1979 .

[2]  Aaron Wildavsky,et al.  Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[3]  Gilles Paquet,et al.  Governance through social learning , 1999 .

[4]  Richard Register,et al.  EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature , 2001 .

[5]  D. Brooks.  Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There , 2000 .

[6]  Eppen Gd,et al.  Bundling--new products, new markets, low risk. , 1991 .

[7]  M. Easterby-Smith.  Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques , 1997 .

[8]  Victoria Hoban,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner , 2013 .

[9]  Gwendolyn Hallsmith.  The Key to Sustainable Cities: Meeting Human Needs, Transforming Community Systems , 2003 .

[10]  Julian Agyeman,et al.  Alternatives for Community and Environment: Where Justice and Sustainability Meet , 2005 .

[11]  Johan Schot,et al.  Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management , 2002 .

[12]  C. Argyris.  Double Loop Learning in Organizations , 1996 .

[13]  Harold A. Linstone,et al.  Decision making for technology executives : using multiple perspectives to improved performance , 1999 .

[14]  Halina Szejnwald Brown,et al.  Social learning through technological inventions in low-impact individual mobility: The cases of sparrow and gizmo , 2006 .

[15]  Fred Luthans,et al.  Organizational Behavior Modification And Beyond: An Operant And Social Learning Approach , 1984 .

[16]  Robert O. Keohane,et al.  Power and interdependence , 1977 .

[17]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[18]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[19]  Sarah C. Darby,et al.  Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energy-conscious village , 2006 .

[20]  E. Wenger.  Communities of practice: Learning , 1998 .

[21]  S. Sitkin.  Learning Through Failure : The Strategy of Small Losses , 1992 .

[22]  David A. Wolfe,et al.  Innovation and Social Learning , 2002 .

[23]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[24]  P. Sabatier.  Theories of the Policy Process , 1999 .

[25]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment as Learning , 1996 .

[26]  Claire Waterton,et al.  The social learning group. , 2001 .

[27]  J. Hertin,et al.  Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’ , 2002 .

[28]  Carl Hosticka,et al.  Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment , 1995 .

[29]  Thomas E. Downing,et al.  Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks , 2003 .

[30]  Philip J. Vergragt.  The Social Shaping of Industrial Innovations , 1988 .

[31]  Tariq Banuri,et al.  Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead , 2002 .

[32]  Shaun French.  Innovation and Social Learning: Institutional Adaptation in an Era of Technological Change , 2004 .

[33]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .

[34]  Halina Szejnwald Brown,et al.  Social Learning through Technological Inventions in Low-Impact Individual Mobility , 2004 .

[35]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Evaluating Public Policy , 1995 .

[36]  Halina Szejnwald Brown,et al.  Learning for Sustainability Transition through Bounded Socio-technical Experiments in Personal Mobility , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[37]  T. Birkland.  After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events , 1997 .

[38]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[39]  David A. Wolfe,et al.  Innovation and social learning : institutional adaptation in an era of technological change , 2002 .

[40]  Matthias Weber,et al.  Towards Environmental Innovation Systems , 2005 .

[41]  S. Thompson.  Social Learning Theory , 2008 .

[42]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[43]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2005 .

[44]  T. Mexia,et al.  Author ' s personal copy , 2009 .

[45]  Kent Portney.  Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities , 2003 .

[46]  R. Kemp,et al.  The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems , 2005 .

[47]  Mattias Höjer,et al.  Determinism and backcasting in futures studies , 2000 .

[48]  John Grin,et al.  Implermentation as communicative action. An interpretative understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups , 1996 .

[49]  M. V. Asselt,et al.  More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy , 2001 .

[50]  Boelie Elzen,et al.  Integrated Long-Term Strategies to Induce Regime Shifts towards Sustainability: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management , 2005 .

[51]  J. Meadowcroft,et al.  Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects , 1998 .

[52]  E. Hamilton-Smith,et al.  Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously , 2003 .

[53]  B. Lundvall,et al.  Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-Based Economy , 1996 .

[54]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[55]  William Peterman.  Taking sustainable cities seriously: economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities Kent E. Portney, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003 , 2004 .