Directionality and diversity 239
The bio- ecology vision highlights the importance of ecological processes that
optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity and avoid
monocultures and soil degradation. While the first two visions are
technology- focused and assign a central role to RD and D in globalised
systems, this vision emphasises the potential for locally or regionally integrated circular processes and systems. In contrast with the importance of external linkages in the first two visions, the bio- ecology vision calls for the
development of locally embedded economies in the form of “place- based
agri- ecological systems” (Marsden, 2012), as a central characteristic for ensuring a sustainable bioeconomy.
The three visions are seen as analytical categories, and should, thus, not be
considered as completely distinct from each other, but rather as ideal- type
visions of the bioeconomy. Similar analytical categories have also been used
in previous studies of the national discourses and narratives of the emerging
bioeconomy. Birch (2016), for instance, analyses policy visions and frameworks in the Canadian bioeconomy by applying four distinct definitions of
the bioeconomy: (1) product based; (2) substitution; (3) renewable- versussustainable; and (4) societal transition. Like the visions framework used in this
chapter, Birch finds that one of the definitions (societal transitions) represents
a competing alternative to the others, and this represents an example of the
tensions and conflicts that exist in developing the bioeconomy (Birch, 2016).
In our case, this alternative is represented by the bio- ecology vision.
In order to test the relevance of this conceptual framework, we wish to
apply it to a number of submissions to a public hearing process that was part
of the development of a national strategy for the bioeconomy in Norway. By
doing so, we wish to see whether the different visions on the bioeconomy
that were earlier identified in a review of the research literature can also be
found among other types of civic and business stakeholders in the bioeconomy. This exercise will, thus, test the analytical framework applied, as well as
improving our understanding of the power struggles and politics in sociotechnical transitions.
12.3 Materials and methods
The method for the analysis is based on a discourse analysis of a recent
national public inquiry process for a bioeconomy strategy in Norway. The
public inquiry was initiated by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries
and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in 2015. The inquiry was
launched with the aim “to identify overall priorities for a national strategy
within the field and formulate goals and instruments in a long- term perspective”. Parties were invited to submit their opinions by sending in
written submissions. The public inquiry material comprises 41 written submissions made by as many different actors representing private companies,
industry associations, universities and university colleges, research institutes,
interest organisations, municipalities, and NGOs. Most of the written
The bio- ecology vision highlights the importance of ecological processes that
optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity and avoid
monocultures and soil degradation. While the first two visions are
technology- focused and assign a central role to RD and D in globalised
systems, this vision emphasises the potential for locally or regionally integrated circular processes and systems. In contrast with the importance of external linkages in the first two visions, the bio- ecology vision calls for the
development of locally embedded economies in the form of “place- based
agri- ecological systems” (Marsden, 2012), as a central characteristic for ensuring a sustainable bioeconomy.
The three visions are seen as analytical categories, and should, thus, not be
considered as completely distinct from each other, but rather as ideal- type
visions of the bioeconomy. Similar analytical categories have also been used
in previous studies of the national discourses and narratives of the emerging
bioeconomy. Birch (2016), for instance, analyses policy visions and frameworks in the Canadian bioeconomy by applying four distinct definitions of
the bioeconomy: (1) product based; (2) substitution; (3) renewable- versussustainable; and (4) societal transition. Like the visions framework used in this
chapter, Birch finds that one of the definitions (societal transitions) represents
a competing alternative to the others, and this represents an example of the
tensions and conflicts that exist in developing the bioeconomy (Birch, 2016).
In our case, this alternative is represented by the bio- ecology vision.
In order to test the relevance of this conceptual framework, we wish to
apply it to a number of submissions to a public hearing process that was part
of the development of a national strategy for the bioeconomy in Norway. By
doing so, we wish to see whether the different visions on the bioeconomy
that were earlier identified in a review of the research literature can also be
found among other types of civic and business stakeholders in the bioeconomy. This exercise will, thus, test the analytical framework applied, as well as
improving our understanding of the power struggles and politics in sociotechnical transitions.
12.3 Materials and methods
The method for the analysis is based on a discourse analysis of a recent
national public inquiry process for a bioeconomy strategy in Norway. The
public inquiry was initiated by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries
and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in 2015. The inquiry was
launched with the aim “to identify overall priorities for a national strategy
within the field and formulate goals and instruments in a long- term perspective”. Parties were invited to submit their opinions by sending in
written submissions. The public inquiry material comprises 41 written submissions made by as many different actors representing private companies,
industry associations, universities and university colleges, research institutes,
interest organisations, municipalities, and NGOs. Most of the written