Ison’s article summarizes 14 years of experience in transdisciplinary research on
system innovation processes. As a result, he and his colleagues put “social learning”
at the heart of their framework: humans engage in making sense of a situation by
socially constructing the issue at stake. Through this process they either reify or
change both their understanding of a situation and the practices in which they
engage. Sometimes this entails amending the institutional setup (made visible as
elements of a situation in the right hand graph). Change and dynamic adaptation is
the normal state of being in a complex living system. So each alternative viewpoint,
each act done differently, amends the framework for action in the future.
So, in essence, we cannot not be part of changing the world. The decision that
lies with us concerns our choice to become aware of this and use it intentionally—
even if cause and effect are not always visible or impressive. Over time and through
collective or concerted action, the situational amendments transform the system in
question even if each shifting from one dynamic stage to another is in itself not very
radical or disruptive (here indicated as S 1 to S n in the left hand graph). As part of
this process, the boundaries of one system may also be adjusted and thence the
scope of what a particular transformation process involves.
So each questioning sparks thought processes in others—an inspiration or irritation that influences the dynamics. Each silence might be interpreted as others
please. And we never know when exactly that last incremental activity necessary to
prompt a social or ecological tipping point for wider and deeper—radical—regime
changes occurs. Social scientists’ research findings suggest that 10 percent of the
people in any given system provides the critical mass where new ideas or opinions
start spreading rapidly (SCNARC 2011).
In order to strategically influence these permanently ongoing processes of
learning and adaptation, it is important to open up a target system: to assess and
understand the crucial path dependencies and which purpose or generative imaginary they are serving. This involves infrastructures and technologies, as STS
research would point out, the ecological embeddedness that SES approaches
highlight, and the enforceable laws, role definitions, and mind-sets that political
economist emphasize.
To capture this holistic view I created an image with 5 P’s that are important to
bear in mind when opening up a system in order to repurpose it (Fig. 5.2). It is
supposed to serve what Uwe Schneidewind, president of the Wuppertal Institute in
Germany, called “transformative literacy”: “the ability to read and utilize information about societal transformation processes, to accordingly interpret and get
actively involved in these processes” (Schneidewind 2013: 83). He argues that
those seeking to understand and plan sustainable development need to consider not
only economic and technological solutions but also put more emphasis on the
cultural and institutional dimensions of societal development. These will eventually
determine if and how technologies are used and how many material goods people
aspire to in the first place.
Schneidewind’s four-dimensional perspective fits that of the STS camp of
transformation research and was meant to complement what Roland Scholz, former
ETH Zurich professor called “environmental literacy” in a book with the same title
156
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations
system innovation processes. As a result, he and his colleagues put “social learning”
at the heart of their framework: humans engage in making sense of a situation by
socially constructing the issue at stake. Through this process they either reify or
change both their understanding of a situation and the practices in which they
engage. Sometimes this entails amending the institutional setup (made visible as
elements of a situation in the right hand graph). Change and dynamic adaptation is
the normal state of being in a complex living system. So each alternative viewpoint,
each act done differently, amends the framework for action in the future.
So, in essence, we cannot not be part of changing the world. The decision that
lies with us concerns our choice to become aware of this and use it intentionally—
even if cause and effect are not always visible or impressive. Over time and through
collective or concerted action, the situational amendments transform the system in
question even if each shifting from one dynamic stage to another is in itself not very
radical or disruptive (here indicated as S 1 to S n in the left hand graph). As part of
this process, the boundaries of one system may also be adjusted and thence the
scope of what a particular transformation process involves.
So each questioning sparks thought processes in others—an inspiration or irritation that influences the dynamics. Each silence might be interpreted as others
please. And we never know when exactly that last incremental activity necessary to
prompt a social or ecological tipping point for wider and deeper—radical—regime
changes occurs. Social scientists’ research findings suggest that 10 percent of the
people in any given system provides the critical mass where new ideas or opinions
start spreading rapidly (SCNARC 2011).
In order to strategically influence these permanently ongoing processes of
learning and adaptation, it is important to open up a target system: to assess and
understand the crucial path dependencies and which purpose or generative imaginary they are serving. This involves infrastructures and technologies, as STS
research would point out, the ecological embeddedness that SES approaches
highlight, and the enforceable laws, role definitions, and mind-sets that political
economist emphasize.
To capture this holistic view I created an image with 5 P’s that are important to
bear in mind when opening up a system in order to repurpose it (Fig. 5.2). It is
supposed to serve what Uwe Schneidewind, president of the Wuppertal Institute in
Germany, called “transformative literacy”: “the ability to read and utilize information about societal transformation processes, to accordingly interpret and get
actively involved in these processes” (Schneidewind 2013: 83). He argues that
those seeking to understand and plan sustainable development need to consider not
only economic and technological solutions but also put more emphasis on the
cultural and institutional dimensions of societal development. These will eventually
determine if and how technologies are used and how many material goods people
aspire to in the first place.
Schneidewind’s four-dimensional perspective fits that of the STS camp of
transformation research and was meant to complement what Roland Scholz, former
ETH Zurich professor called “environmental literacy” in a book with the same title
156
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations