Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation

Figures & data

Table 1. Typology of power relations & dynamics (adopted from: Avelino and Wittmayer 2016)

Type of Power Relations	Types of Power Dynamics
Power over	A depends on B but B also depends on A = > A and B have power over each other	A depends on B but B does not depend on A = > B has power over A	A and B do not depend on each other = > A and B have no power over each other
	mutual dependence	one-sided dependence	independence
More/less power	A exercises more/less power than B, but A and B have similar, collective goals	A exercises more/less power than B, while A and B have mutually exclusive goals	A exercises more/less power than B, A and B have independent co-existent goals
	cooperation	competition	co-existence
Different power	A’s and B’s different power exercises enable and support one another	A’s and B’s different power exercises restrict, resist or disrupt one another	A’s and B’s different power exercises do not (significantly) affect one another
	synergy	antagonism	indifference

Table 2. Power contestations and questions for research on social change and innovation

Power Contestations	Questions about social change & innovation (hereafter “change”)
Power ‘over’ < > power ‘to’ (e.g. Dahl, Parsons, Foucault, Morris, Davis, Giddens, Arendt, Gordon, Stewart)	Power over: Who is exercising power over whom? How are which structures of domination/oppression/dependence changed or (re)produced? Power to: How is power exercised for/through/against change? Power with: How do actors collaborate in the exercise of power for/against change?
Centred < > diffused (e.g. Dahl, Bachrach & Baratz, Lukes, Mann, Foucault, Gramsci)	How are the three/four faces of power manifested in processes of change? How is power diffused, (de)centralised and/or recentralised in/by/for change? Who is included and excluded? How & by whom is the agenda of change decided? Which issues are kept off the agenda? How are underlying preferences shaped?
Consensual < > conflictual (e.g. Parsons, Arendt, Mann, Haugaard)	How are both consensus and conflict manifested in change? Which conflicts are ‘hidden’ under seemingly consensual processes? How and to what extent is consensus oppressive and conflict emancipatory (and vice versa) in processes of change?
Constraining < > enabling (e.g. Foucault, Giddens, Clegg, Davis, Arendt, Hayward & Lukes)	How are both structure & agency manifested in change? Who/what is enabled and/or constrained by change and how? How/to what extent are which structures (a) an object of change (to be transformed), (b) a constraint for change, (c) an enabler for change?
Quantity < > quality (Mann, Sewell, Arendt, Avelino)	How and to what extent are what different kinds of power exercised for/through/against change, by and over whom? Which actors are exercising more/less power in/of/through change, and how? Who has more/less access to which resources? How do power relations/dynamics manifest in change (e.g. cooperation, (in)dependence, competition, co-existence, synergy, antagonism)?
Empowerment < > disempowerment (e.g. Boje & Rosile, Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, Follet)	Who is (dis)empowered in/by change, by whom or by what? (How) is (dis)empowerment manifested in change as (a) intentional outcome (empowerment as end), (b) constraining/enabling factor (empowerment as means), or (c) object/type of change in itself?
Knowledge as < > prior to power (e.g. Bourdieau, Flyvbjerg, Lukes, Foucault, Barnes)	Which knowledges, discourses, ideologies underly the process of change? How is knowledge on change co-evolving with which power dynamics? How is knowledge mobilised as (a) an object of change, or (b) an instrument for enabling/constraining change?

Avelino, F. and Wittmayer, J.M., 2016. Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18 (5), 628–649. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar