2,063
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Action research for energy system transformation

& ORCID Icon
Pages 655-670 | Received 31 Aug 2020, Accepted 26 May 2022, Published online: 05 Jun 2022

ABSTRACT

Responding to the climate crisis requires a large-scale transformation of energy systems away from fossil fuels toward a more distributed, equitable, renewable-based society. The societal benefits of this transformation which could redistribute power, literally and figuratively, go well beyond decarbonization; a renewable society could also be a healthier, more economically just society. This study conceptualizes action researchers as key drivers of these systemic change processes. We argue that transforming and democratizing energy systems should be the focal point of action researcher’s efforts to address climate change. To advance this argument, the study draws on the systemic action research, energy democracy, and sustainability transitions literature and includes recommendations, examples, and practical suggestions for conducting energy-related action research. This study’s findings will be useful to researchers interested in engaging the climate crisis by building transformative capacity in the context of local and regional energy systems.

Around the globe, there is growing urgency for more transformative action to respond to the worsening climate crisis. This urgency is echoed in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Citation2014, Citation2018) and other international bodies (UN Citation2016; UNESCO and UNFCCC Citation2016) that emphasize the need for a rapid transformation of societal systems to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change and prepare for increasing climate disruptions. Relatedly, sustainability researchers are shifting their attention from continued characterization of the climate change problem to more solutions-oriented research that seeks to produce actionable knowledge about systems-level transformations (Fazey et al. Citation2018; Sovacool et al. Citation2020; Wiek and Lang Citation2016). Action researchers, too, are adopting a transformation perspective on climate change as a means of building capacity for deep structural change (Bradbury et al. Citation2019; Trajber et al. Citation2019). What these efforts have in common is a belief that incremental, individualistic, technological approaches to confronting the climate crisis are insufficient and that systemic approaches relying on multi-level collective action and structural change are required (York et al. Citation2021).

Because fossil fuel reliance continues to be such a critical contributor to climate change and because reliable, accessible energy is fundamental to human societies, energy system transformation must be a primary focus of climate action. For this reason, we believe that transforming energy systems should be the focal point of action researchers’ climate change efforts. To date, however, no clear guidelines exist that integrate what action researchers know about systems-level change (Burns Citation2012, Citation2014) with what social scientists are learning about energy system change in particular (Araújo Citation2014; Hess Citation2018; Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente Citation2019; Ystmark Bjerkan, Ryghaug, and Moe Skjølsvold Citation2021). The purpose of this paper is to provide such guidelines by drawing on the systemic action research and energy-related social science literature, including the energy democracy and sustainability transitions literature (Köhler et al. Citation2019; Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017; Stephens Citation2019; Szulecki Citation2018). The study includes recommendations, examples, and practical suggestions for planning and conducting transformative action research on energy systems. This study’s findings will be useful to anyone interested in addressing climate change by engaging in action research to transform energy systems, including those who want to organize their work around the principles of energy democracy.

Two roads converge: systemic action research meets sustainability transitions

We are not the first to argue for a more transformative or systemic action research in the context of sustainability challenges such as climate change (Bradbury et al. Citation2019; Burns Citation2012; Kemmis Citation2009). Here, at the outset, we want to make clear where our conceptualization of action research for energy system transformation comes from and how it relates to these other approaches.

First, our work builds on the systemic action research tradition or paradigm that developed through applying systems thinking and dynamics to action research methodology (Chen, Huang, and Zeng Citation2018; Coghlan Citation2002; Flood Citation2010). Burns (Citation2012) defines systemic action research as ‘an approach to learning and deliberation which involves multiple stakeholders in generating deep insights into the dynamics of the systems that they are trying to change’ (88). Systemic action research offers a solid methodological foundation for action research on energy systems because it grounds the processes of learning and action in a systemic understanding of change that extends well beyond an individual person, group, or organization – the focal point of most action research studies (Burns Citation2014; Chen, Huang, and Zeng Citation2018). To produce change, systemic action research studies typically combine sense-making and systems-mapping activities with multiple collaborative experiments enacted simultaneously across a wide social field (Burns Citation2007, Citation2012).

Research suggests that engaging in the methods of systemic action research can result in systems-level change. For example, a systemic inquiry into water and sanitation issues facing communities surrounding Lake Victoria (Uganda/Tanzania) included mixed research teams that combined engineers with social scientists (Burns Citation2012). The result was increased understanding among technicians of the significance of the social system in shaping the adoption of technological solutions (Burns Citation2012, 98). This same project employed visual mapping, large inquiry teams, and community forums to identify shifting power relations among stakeholders and create new dialogue among local farmers and traditional authorities (Burns Citation2012). Another study used systemic action research to build capacity among community radio broadcasters in southern Ghana to investigate climate change impacts (Harvey, Burns, and Oswald Citation2012). These are exactly the kind of methods required for understanding and enacting change within complex systems such as energy, and readers who identify with the systemic tradition in action research will find much to identify with in the following sections.

Our work attempts to link the systemic action research tradition with action-oriented approaches to research which have been emerging in the field of sustainability transitions (Bartels and Wittmayer Citation2018a; Fazey et al. Citation2018). For our purposes, transitions research makes up for what systemic action research has often lacked – deep conceptualization of the unique characteristics and dynamics of energy systems change in particular and the transformative potential of different types of actors and actions within sustainability transitions (Schot, Kanger, and Verbong Citation2016; Wittmayer, Bartels, and Larrea Citation2021; Ystmark Bjerkan, Ryghaug, and Moe Skjølsvold Citation2021). Transition scholars and others are increasingly being drawn to action research methodology because of its potential to initiate deliberate societal transformations through participatory, critical, and relational methods of inquiry (Bartels and Wittmayer Citation2018a; Bradbury et al. Citation2019). The need for such transformations in the context of climate change has brought these two scholarly roads – systemic action research and sustainability transitions – together. As such, engagement in action research for energy systems transformation builds on what is already known about the use of action research for systems transformation and combines it with concepts and methods recommended by the sustainability transitions literature.

Here, we define action research for energy system transformation as a collaborative learning experiment conducted in the context of an energy system with the goal of producing transformative action (Bartels and Wittmayer Citation2018b; Bradbury et al. Citation2019). By transformative action we mean action capable of radical, large-scale, and long-term societal changes (Hölscher, Wittmayer, and Loorbach Citation2018). The next section describes a conceptual and theoretical framework for this.

Socio-technical systems and transitions theory

This study is framed by the concept of socio-technical systems and theories about how socio-technical systems change over time (Köhler et al. Citation2019). Schot, Kanger, and Verbong (Citation2016) define socio-technical systems as a ‘configuration of technologies, services and infrastructures, regulations and actors (for example, producers, suppliers, policymakers and users) that fulfils a societal function such as energy provision’ (2). As such, socio-technical systems include both social and technical components (Eason Citation2014). In addition to energy, examples of socio-technical systems include food, water, waste management, and transportation systems, each of which fulfils a specific societal function, each of which can be considered more or less sustainable depending on their social impact and environmental consequences.

Transition researchers locate the cause of problems such as climate change in the unsustainability of socio-technical systems such as energy and focus on making these systems more sustainable (Sovacool et al. Citation2020; Wiek and Lang Citation2016). Markard, Raven, and Truffer (Citation2012) define sustainability transitions as ‘long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable forms of production and consumption’ (956). Examples include the transition from sailing ships to steamships, from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles, and from fossil fuels to renewable energy systems (Geels et al. Citation2017; Schot, Kanger, and Verbong Citation2016). Our desire is to position action research as a key driver of these systemic change processes – a desire we share with action researchers in the sustainability transitions community (Bartels and Wittmayer Citation2018a; Fazey et al. Citation2018; Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017; Wittmayer, Bartels, and Larrea Citation2021).

Transition theory focuses on the complexity of socio-technical transitions and the interactions, interdependencies, and feedback loops between different actors, technologies, infrastructures, institutions, and governance systems (Kivimaa et al. Citation2019; Loorbach Citation2010; Sovacool et al. Citation2020; Ystmark Bjerkan, Ryghaug, and Moe Skjølsvold Citation2021). The multi-level perspective on transitions suggests that large scale transformation occurs when there is aligned disruption of power dynamics at three levels (Geels Citation2014): (1) disruption at the macro scale which refers to ‘landscape’ changes like a pandemic, climate disruptions, wars, or a global recession, (2) disruption in the mainstream status quo processes and practices including shifts in cultural norms, and (3) disruption through experimentation and niche innovation. Transition scholars are particularly interested in the role of frontrunners, tinkerers, start-ups, creatives, and disruptors (Hargreaves et al. Citation2013; Paredis and Block Citation2018; Schot, Kanger, and Verbong Citation2016).

Given the global macro-level disruption associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated disruption of status-quo norms, now is an opportune time for engaging the transformative potential of action research to shape socio-technical (energy) transitions (Bradbury and Divecha Citation2020; Bradbury et al. Citation2019). Action research provides a way to structure broad participation by a plurality of actors across multiple levels of an energy system, particularly when guided by a shared vision of energy democracy, which is described in the next section.

Energy democracy: redistributing power to the people

Energy democracy is a growing conceptual and social movement that recognizes the opportunities for redistributing power, literally and figuratively, as society moves away from fossil fuel reliance toward a renewable-based future (Feldpausch-Parker et al. Citation2022; Stephens Citation2019; Van Veelen Citation2018). For action researchers, energy democracy provides a valuable concept and set of principles to contextualize and prioritize actions contributing to accelerating energy system transformation (Revez et al. Citation2020). While energy democracy activism has been particularly strong in the United States as corporate fossil fuel interests have been so influential in the political process, the principles of energy democracy apply throughout the world (Feldpausch-Parker et al. Citation2022).

Energy democracy focuses on resisting the powerful entities that want to sustain fossil fuel interests, reclaiming the energy system as a place for public good, and restructuring energy systems so that everyone is included in making energy-related decisions (Burke and Stephens Citation2017; Stephens Citation2019; Szulecki and Overland Citation2020). By explicitly connecting energy policy with social and political outcomes, energy democracy re-articulates energy systems as distributed public works that distribute social benefits among local communities (Allen, Lyons, and Stephens Citation2019; Stephens Citation2019). Energy democracy advocates and action researchers share a belief in the power of democratic forms of knowledge production to effect positive societal change (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire Citation2003; Rowell and Feldman Citation2019). Both prioritize the transformative potential of redistributing power to the people.

By highlighting the negative societal impacts of fossil fuel-based concentration of power and wealth, the principles of energy democracy connect energy system change with an associated transformation toward a more socially just and equal society (Burke and Stephens Citation2018). Energy democracy also recognizes that replacing infrastructure based on fossil fuels with renewables is much more than a technological substitution; the social changes associated with this transition could be equally transformative (Feldpausch-Parker et al. Citation2022; Stephens et al. Citation2018). Energy democracy focuses on harnessing this progressive social change potential by embracing a vision of more distributed energy systems with a regionally appropriate mix of different renewable sources moving toward a society meeting all energy needs from renewable sources (Stephens Citation2019; Szulecki Citation2018).

The energy democracy vision provides a valuable lens to guide action research that seeks to effect large-scale social change through renewable energy transformation. By explicitly acknowledging the distribution of ownership and who profits and who is burdened by energy systems, energy democracy reframes energy system change as an opportunity to redistribute political and economic power. In this study, we use the term transformation to refer to this process by which energy systems transition away from extractive systems that concentrate wealth and power among a few to more democratic renewable-based systems of production, distribution, and consumption (Farla et al. Citation2012; Stephens et al. Citation2018).

Examples of action research on energy system transformation

The sustainability transitions research field is expanding rapidly as interdisciplinary scholars increasingly adopt a socio-technical systems perspective on sustainability issues (Köhler et al. Citation2019). This body of scholarship includes action research studies on transitions in food/agriculture systems (Balázs and Pataki Citation2018; Eksvärd and Rydberg Citation2010; Jhagroe Citation2018), water systems (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021; Westling and Sharp Citation2018), waste management systems (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021), and energy systems (Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente Citation2019; Revez et al. Citation2020). Transition scholars have also used action research to co-create local/regional understanding around climate action (Campos et al. Citation2016; Clement Citation2018) and sustainable development (Paredis and Block Citation2018; Saija and Pappalardo Citation2018; Wittmayer et al. Citation2014) where multiple socio-technical systems are addressed at once.

All of these studies offer useful examples of action research for system transformation. In this section we review three focal studies (Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente Citation2019; Paredis and Block Citation2018; Revez et al. Citation2020) that demonstrate how action research has been used to transform energy systems around the vision and principles of energy democracy. These three studies provide examples of the kinds of contexts, questions, and methods which action researchers are using to investigate energy system transformation.

Action research on sustainable transitions

The first study (Paredis and Block Citation2018) provides an example of action research on policy where energy is part of a sustainable transition strategy integrating multiple systems and themes (i.e. food, housing, mobility, work). The study (Paredis and Block Citation2018) was conducted in Flanders (Belgium) and initiated by civil society organizations and activists to promote a more just and radical transition toward sustainability than what the government was promoting. Rather than exclude government officials, however, this action research positioned them as co-constructors – within a network of social movement actors representing 20 organizations – of a regional transition strategy. The intention was to create a more distributed kind of policy network ‘where a plurality of actors – the government being only one of them – interact to understand and tackle problems’ (115).

The policy network in this case (Paredis and Block Citation2018) rather easily identified a common problem focus for their work – an unjust and unsustainable society. Things became complicated, however, when they tried to create a common vision for a just transition. Some organizations wanted to focus on climate/energy goals and others on broader social and economic goals, and as a result the document used to communicate the network’s vision became overly complicated and difficult to use. At this point the primary researcher (Paredis) offered to restructure the text document as a ‘mind map’ – a visual document which had the effect of breaking through the communicative impasse and becoming the central ‘discursive element’ of the coalition (see 121–122). The mind map explained the network’s vision, guided steering and working group meetings, and facilitated internal and external communication. A collaborative learning history conducted two years later as part of the same action research study revealed how important the mind map was to keeping smaller socio-cultural organizations engaged in the network as it gave each of their commitments ‘a place in a broader entity’ (124).

Although the policy network in this example (Paredis and Block Citation2018) did not directly influence Flemish policy, the study provides insight into how energy democracy sits within the broader policy goals of a regional sustainability transition. In this case the differences of opinion around just transition were ‘deeper than anticipated’ (Paredis and Block Citation2018, 122) and the success of the mind map in bridging these differences greater than anticipated. Like Paredis and Block (Citation2018), Wittmayer, Bartels, and Larrea (Citation2021) also found ‘visual, creative and engaging artifacts’ helpful for imagining alternative futures with policy actors (11). Action researchers who conduct transitions policy research should anticipate the need to find similar ways of building shared understanding of project goals among policymakers as co-creation of a shared vision of change is critical to collective action toward transformation (Haasnoot et al. Citation2013; Kuitenbrouwer Citation2021).

Energy democracy principles emerged in this example (Paredis and Block Citation2018) through the co-development of the network’s vision for a just transition. The principles of energy democracy are evident in the inclusive make-up of the policy network itself, which was intentionally structured to allow more people to influence decisions about transition policy. Energy democracy is also evident in how energy is integrated with social, political, and economic outcomes on the mind map, which includes thematic ‘branches’ for cutting back on social inequality, deepening democracy, redistributing incomes and capital, and prioritizing 100% renewable energy sources. Each of these themes is central to the energy democracy movement (Burke Citation2018; Burke and Stephens Citation2017).

Action research on just transitions and community energy

The second study (Revez et al. Citation2020) provides an example of action research to develop energy democracy principles in the context of local communities. In the study (Revez et al. Citation2020) researchers used participatory action research to co-construct with participants from six neighborhoods in five European countries a draft of ten principles for a just and inclusive energy transition in Europe. Data collection at this stage involved semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and citizen’ juries – a ‘form of deliberative mini-public’ (6) where small groups of participants (8–12 each) critique and discuss a presentation by a local ‘expert’. A range of themes around energy justice and inclusion emerged from these events, which were shared and refined by participants through a series of deliberative cycles until a draft set of principles were agreed upon.

Researchers (Revez et al. Citation2020) then implemented a Delphi process whereby the principles were reviewed by a panel of academics from applied science and social science with expertise in energy systems and sustainability transitions research. The goal of the Delphi panel was to ‘establish stability of opinion and levels of consensus’ (5) around the principles. There were three rounds to the panel process: (1) developing materials and survey questions for the panel; (2) selecting and recruiting the panelists; and (3) delivering two anonymous survey rounds (via email) where panelists were asked to assess each principle individually. Through this process, the drafted principles that were developed through participatory methods were strengthened and refined by incorporating the opinions and expertise of an interdisciplinary panel of academic scientists.

Energy democracy principles emerged in this example (Revez et al. Citation2020) through the integration of participatory action research and Delphi methods. In a democratic society ‘citizens are supposed to have the opportunity to influence important decisions affecting their lives’ (Andersen and Jæger Citation1999, 334). This research was democratic because it allowed ordinary citizens an opportunity to create the kind of principles that would guide the kind of energy transition they envisioned. Energy democracy is also evident in the principles themselves (e.g. energy poverty mitigation strategies should be integrated into new energy projects) all of which connect energy with social and political outcomes (Revez et al. Citation2020, 7).

Restructuring ownership of energy infrastructure

The third example of energy system action research (Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente Citation2019) involves participants using the principles developed in Revez et al. (Citation2020) to assess the energy democracy potential of different community-oriented renewable energy projects (e.g. commercial wind farm, locally-owned hydropower project, farmer-owned biogas cooperative, energy purchasing cooperative). These projects reflect energy democracy by prioritizing local and community controlled renewables and the scaling up of cooperative-model, publicly owned energy infrastructure (Bozuwa Citation2018). Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente (Citation2019) show how researchers can make energy infrastructure and decision-making visible through deliberation on different models for local electricity generation. This example demonstrates the value of action researchers in facilitating informed community discourse on different ways of restructuring energy systems. Many who are resisting a renewable-based future, those making claims that renewable energy will never be sufficient, fail to acknowledge the diversity of renewable energy options (Isenhour and Feng Citation2016; Klass and Wilson Citation2016). By engaging participants with a diversity of options – and empowering them with tools to assess the democratic potential of each – Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente (Citation2019) provide a means of breaking through this resistance.

Recommendations: action research for energy system transformation

As the examples above make clear, the transition away from fossil fuels toward more renewable-based energy systems is taking shape differently in communities, states, and countries throughout the world. The energy democracy movement focuses on accelerating this process by resisting the dominant fossil fuel-based energy agenda while reclaiming and democratically restructuring energy systems to include a heterogeneous, locally appropriate mix of renewable energy (Stephens Citation2019).

Because of the political and economic power of the ‘polluter elite’ (Kenner Citation2019) and the sustained dominance of fossil fuel reliance in many parts of the world, the vision of energy democracy may seem naïve and perhaps even utopian. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the renewable transformation is an opportunity to achieve broad societal change to advance social justice goals by re-investing in people and communities and redistributing not just electric power but economic and political power (Hess Citation2018). As energy systems change, how can action researchers advance the principles of energy democracy in the face of powerful corporate interests who are strategically investing to slow down the renewable transformation?

In this section, we address this question by offering recommendations for planning and conducting action research for energy system transformation. These recommendations are based on the action research and sustainability transitions literature and address the importance of transformation, multi-actor networks, system mapping, visioning and planning, actions and experiments, and learning and reflecting. Given the complexities of energy systems and their transformation, the possibilities for action researchers to engage in energy system change are expansive. The local and regional context, as well as the capacity to engage directly with a diversity of energy system stakeholders and communities, influences how to initiate action research on energy system transformation.

Importance of transformation

Transformation is less about changing societal sub-systems such as energy and more about creating more just and inclusive spaces for deliberating about the future of energy and society (Hölscher, Wittmayer, and Loorbach Citation2018). Transformation offers a powerful methodological framing for action research on energy because it emphasizes radical, large-scale, and long-term societal changes while offering an alternative to the dominant energy imaginary, which is technocentric, exclusive, behaviorist, unsafe, and unjust (Genus et al. Citation2021; Hölscher, Wittmayer, and Loorbach Citation2018). The dominant energy imaginary insists on scientific knowledge, craves technological solutions, and limits the transformative potential of both action and research (Dorninger et al. Citation2020). We recommend that action researchers adopt an alternative imaginary, one which emphasizes bottom-up governance, openness to disruption, interdisciplinarity, and the co-production of knowledge with diverse participants (Bradbury et al. Citation2019; Genus et al. Citation2021).

Multi-actor networks

Transition scholars emphasize that energy transformation requires coordinated action across multiple sites and levels of a system, otherwise the legacy system (fossil fuels) remains in place (Dorninger et al. Citation2020; Geels et al. Citation2017; Jorgenson, Stephens, and White Citation2019). For this reason, we recommend that action researchers focus on establishing multi-actor networks of participant stakeholders. These networks function as collective subjects – the more diverse they are the more likely they are to uncover the politics and power dynamics of energy system transformation (Avelino and Wittmayer Citation2016; De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021; Saija and Pappalardo Citation2018). Action researchers can include electric utilities as key nodes of innovation within the multi-actor network as they have significant influence over how energy systems change. Engaging with relevant policymakers to understand how renewable electricity is being supported and how fossil fuel infrastructure is being taken off-line also offers high value opportunities. Reconceptualizing policymakers as ‘stakeholder participants’ in the action research process (Wittmayer, Bartels, and Larrea Citation2021, 7) is a way to transform their role as well. Action researchers should expect the network to expand and become more interdisciplinary as participants request more information about energy infrastructure and decision-making processes.

Making sense and mapping the system

As socio-technical systems are complex and deeply structured, a critical aspect of action research for energy transformation is deeply understanding the system itself. This suggests an open and deliberative process of inquiry by which multiple stakeholders come together to explore energy system dynamics (Burns Citation2012; Wittmayer et al. Citation2014). In terms of specific strategies, we recommend that action researchers conduct an energy system analysis with a core group of engaged individuals (Bartels and Wittmayer Citation2018a; Burns Citation2012, Citation2014; Wittmayer and Schäpke Citation2014). Attempting to define together the energy system’s landscape, regime, and niche features (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021; Geels Citation2014) offers opportunities for co-creation. Identifying the energy system’s main actors and the intermediaries that work between them (Backhaus Citation2010; Hargreaves et al. Citation2013; Ystmark Bjerkan, Ryghaug, and Moe Skjølsvold Citation2021) is important, and using participatory tools (e.g. scenarios, role play) to make energy infrastructure more visible engages local energy expertise while building collective understanding of local energy-related problems (Andersen and Jæger Citation1999; Demski, Spence, and Pidgeon Citation2017; Thomas et al. Citation2018). Co-creating a citizen accessible map of the local/regional energy system to share at public meetings (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021; Saija and Pappalardo Citation2018) provides a mechanism for collective envisioning. Each of these strategies has been used by action-oriented scholars to make sense of systems in need of transformation.

Visioning and planning

Scholars have emphasized that transforming a system such as energy requires a collective vision (e.g. alternative futures, fundamental values) and plan for realizing that vision – a plan which participants have the capacity to move forward within their individual organizations and private/public sphere roles (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017; Paredis and Block Citation2018). An alternative energy imaginary is helpful here, as are narrative and audiovisual tools for co-constructing alternative storylines about energy transformation and reframing dominant ones (Clement Citation2018; Genus et al. Citation2021; Wittmayer et al. Citation2019). We also recommend, in terms of visioning/planning strategies, that action researchers invite participants to play the role of policymakers and choose between different energy project proposals (Thomas et al. Citation2018) as well as assessing each project in terms of their energy democracy potential (Lennon, Dunphy, and Sanvincente Citation2019).

Aiming for a transformation plan that includes action at multiple levels, including ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ action, is recommended (Balázs and Pataki Citation2018; York et al. Citation2021). Questioning proposals that emphasize energy conservation or efficiency rather than systemic transformation provides a mechanism to expand thinking (Jorgenson, Stephens, and White Citation2019). Using scenario workshops can help ensure plans include perspectives from diverse stakeholder groups (Andersen and Jæger Citation1999; Campos et al. Citation2016). Collaborating with city engineers and planners can help ensure actions are feasible within reason (Saija and Pappalardo Citation2018). To integrate energy democracy principles into the plan, consider co-creating a vision for just transition (Paredis and Block Citation2018).

Actions and experiments

Research on sustainability transitions highlights the potential of innovative experiments (both social and technical) to disrupt dominant energy imaginaries and regimes (Geels et al. Citation2017). Combining different kinds of experiments (e.g. technological, institutional, place-based, governance) deepens participant understanding of system complexity and allows new participant roles to emerge (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017; Wittmayer et al. Citation2017). Successful experiments (i.e. those that produce learning about the system and/or structural change) can be repeated in different contexts and scaled up (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021).

Based on the literature, we recommend that action researchers focus on actions and experiments that create technological and symbolic variety (Schot, Kanger, and Verbong Citation2016). Particularly significant in terms of transformative potential are experiments that produce new values and relationships and address the underlying goals, intent, and rules of the energy system (Bradbury and Divecha Citation2020; Dorninger et al. Citation2020). We also recommend that action researchers prioritize renewable energy experiments and position successful experiments as a symbol of the current and possible future state of the energy system (Wittmayer et al. Citation2014).

The vision and principles of energy democracy can be incorporated by focusing on three kinds of energy activism: resisting, reclaiming, and restructuring (Stephens Citation2019). Participants can resist the legacy system by blocking ‘fracking’ and other oil and gas extraction processes, oil and gas pipelines, and fossil fuel power plants. Advocate for developing and scaling up renewable energy infrastructure and ‘sundowning’ fossil fuel technologies (Hess Citation2018). Energy systems can be reclaimed by experimenting with community energy projects and energy cooperatives and striving for equitable ownership and access to energy by race, gender, and socioeconomic status (Stephens Citation2019). Energy systems can be restructured by coordinating actions and experiments across multiple sites and levels of the system (Geels Citation2014; Stephens Citation2019).

Learning, reflecting, and sharing

Action research and energy system transformation are both social learning processes, a form of learning-by-doing where new alternative ideas, practices, and social relations are created as well as new techniques and technologies (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017; Wittmayer et al. Citation2014). In action research for energy systems transformation, changes to the physical system (i.e. infrastructure) and socio-cultural system are both closely and reflexively monitored. Reflections that focus on system dynamics rather than project implementation are more likely to create novel opportunities and next steps (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino Citation2017).

In terms of strategies for learning, reflecting, and sharing, we recommend that action researchers co-create a learning history of the research process (Paredis and Block Citation2018) and a transformation narrative to share publicly (De Muynck and Nalpas Citation2021; Wittmayer et al. Citation2014). Transformation narratives are helpful for re-interpreting the energy past and guiding current energy-related actions in anticipation of a different energy future (Wittmayer et al. Citation2019). We also recommend that action researchers use feedback interviews to assess the experiences of co-researchers and participants (Campos et al. Citation2016) and consider producing a policy report based on case studies in the network (Balázs and Pataki Citation2018; Saija and Pappalardo Citation2018).

Conclusion

Action researchers around the world have exciting opportunities to engage with energy system transformation. In response to the climate crisis, energy systems are changing rapidly. The transition from predominantly centralized fossil-fuel reliant systems to heterogeneous configurations that rely more heavily on multiple types of renewable energy (Brown et al. Citation2015; Jacobson et al. Citation2015) is creating a dynamic set of systemic changes that – depending on how change happens – could advance democratic principles and advance social justice. The transformation of complex socio-technical energy systems have huge potential for social and political change in addition to technological change, particularly when organized around the vision and principles of energy democracy (Stephens, Wilson, and Peterson Citation2015; Szulecki and Overland Citation2020). Action research provides a mechanism to influence this critical systems transformation. By experimenting with different transition strategies, action researchers can help guide policies and programs during this dynamic period of change. Given the breadth of possible transition pathways, action research has an opportunity to have significant impact on future energy systems.

Energy system transformation provides opportunities for many more action researchers to engage with large scale systemic change. A recent review of action research studies published between 2000 and 2014 found, for example, that only 3% fell under the paradigm of systemic action research (Chen, Huang, and Zeng Citation2018). Similarly, relatively few members of the sustainability transitions research community currently use action research methodology (Zolfagharian et al. Citation2019). The good news is that action researchers and transition scholars hold many assumptions in common in terms of the kind of research required to change the world (Bradbury et al. Citation2019; Fazey et al. Citation2018). This article intends to initiate a convergence between action researchers and transition scholars around the potential for transforming and democratizing energy systems in the face of climate change. The injustices created by the legacy fossil fuel dominant energy systems go well beyond the climate crisis – so action research on energy system transformation can also be prioritized for many other reasons in addition to climate change.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  • Allen, E., H. Lyons, and J. C. Stephens. 2019. “Women’s Leadership in Renewable Transformation, Energy Justice and Energy Democracy: Redistributing Power.” Energy Research & Social Science 57: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233.
  • Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jæger. 1999. “Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic decision-making.” Science & Public Policy 26 (5): 331–340. doi:10.3152/147154399781782301.
  • Araújo, K. 2014. “The Emerging Field of Energy Transitions: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities.” Energy Research & Social Science 1: 112–121. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.002.
  • Avelino, F., and J. M. Wittmayer. 2016. “Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A multi-actor Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18 (5): 628–649. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.
  • Backhaus, J. 2010. “Intermediaries as Innovating Actors in the Transition to a Sustainable Energy System.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 4 (1): 86–109.
  • Balázs, B., and G. Pataki. 2018. “Cooperative Research for bottom-up Food Sovereignty and Policy Change.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Bartels and J. M. Wittmayer, 39–60, London, UK: Routledge.
  • Bartels, K. P. R., and J. M. Wittmayer, Eds. 2018a. Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Bartels, K. P. R., and J. M. Wittmayer. 2018b. “Introduction: Action Research in Policy Analysis and Transition Research.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Bartels and J. M. Wittmayer, 1–17, London, UK: Routledge.
  • Bozuwa, J. (2018). “Public Ownership for Energy Democracy.” Next System Project. https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/public-ownership-energy-democracy
  • Bradbury, H., S. Waddell, K. O’Brien, M. Apgar, B. Teehankee, and I. Fazey. 2019. “A Call to Action Research for Transformations: The Times Demand It.” Action Research 17 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1177/1476750319829633.
  • Bradbury, H., and S. Divecha. 2020. “Action Methods for Faster Transformation: Relationality in Action.” Action Research 18 (3): 273–281. doi:10.1177/1476750320936493.
  • Brown, L., J. Larsen, J. M. Roney, and E. E. Adams. 2015. The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Brydon-Miller, M., D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire. 2003. “Why Action Research?” Action Research 1 (1): 9–28. doi:10.1177/14767503030011002.
  • Burke, M. J., and J. C. Stephens. 2017. “Energy Democracy: Goals and Policy Instruments for Sociotechnical Transitions.” Energy Research & Social Science 33: 35–48. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.024.
  • Burke, M. J., and J. C. Stephens. 2018. “Political Power and Renewable Energy Futures: A Critical Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 35: 78–93. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.018.
  • Burke, M. J. 2018. “Shared yet Contested: Energy Democracy counter-narratives.” Frontiers in Communication 3: 1–15. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2018.00022.
  • Burns, D. 2007. Systemic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
  • Burns, D. 2012. “Participatory Systemic Inquiry.” IDS Bulletin 43 (3): 88–100. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00325.x.
  • Burns, D. 2014. “Systemic Action Research: Changing System Dynamics to Support Sustainable Change.” Action Research 12 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1177/1476750313513910.
  • Campos, I. S., F. M. Alves, J. Dinis, M. Truninger, A. Vizinho, and G. Penha-Lopes. 2016. “Climate Adaptation, Transitions, and Socially Innovative action-research Approaches.” Ecology and Society 21 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-08059-210113.
  • Chen, S., F. Huang, and W. Zeng. 2018. “Comments on Systematic Methodologies of Action Research in the New Millennium: A Review of Publications 2000-2014.” Action Research 16 (4): 341–360. doi:10.1177/1476750317691103.
  • Clement, F. 2018. “Exploring the Use of Audiovisual Media for Deliberation: Reframing Discourses on Vulnerabilities to Climate Change.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Bartels and J. M. Wittmayer, 200–221, London, UK: Routledge.
  • Coghlan, D. 2002. “Interlevel Dynamics in Systemic Action Research.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 15 (4): 273–283. doi:10.1023/A:1016392203837.
  • De Muynck, S., and D. Nalpas. 2021. “The Renewal of Politics through co-creation: The Analysis of the Case of Rainwater and Biowaste in Brussels.” International Journal of Action Research 17 (1): 18–40. doi:10.3224/ijar.v17i1.02.
  • Demski, C., A. Spence, and N. Pidgeon. 2017. “Effects of Exemplar Scenarios on Public Preferences for Energy Futures Using the my2050 scenario-building Tool.” Nature Energy 2: 1–7. doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.27.
  • Dorninger, C., D. J. Abson, C. I. Apetrei, P. Derwort, C. D. Ives, K. Klaniecki, D. P. M. Lam, et al. 2020. “Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation: A Review on Interventions in Food and Energy Systems.” Ecological Economics 171: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106570.
  • Eason, K. 2014. “Afterword: The Past, Present and Future of Sociotechnical Systems Theory.” Applied Ergonomics 45 (2): 213–220. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.09.017.
  • Eksvärd, K., and T. Rydberg. 2010. “Integrating Participatory Learning and Action Research and Systems Ecology: A Potential for Sustainable Agriculture Transitions.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 23: 467–486. doi:10.1007/s11213-010-9172-6.
  • Farla, J., J. Markard, R. Raven, and L. Coenen. 2012. “Sustainability Transitions in the Making: A Closer Look at Actors, Strategies and Resources.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79: 991–998. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001.
  • Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, J. Patterson, J. Hultman, B. van Mierlo, F. Säwe, et al. 2018. “Ten Essentials for action-oriented and Second Order Energy Transitions, Transformations and Climate Change Research.” Energy Research & Social Science 40: 54–70. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026.
  • Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., D. Endres, T. R. Peterson, and S. Gomez, Eds. 2022. Routledge Handbook of Energy Democracy. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  • Flood, R. L. 2010. “The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 23 (4): 269–284. doi:10.1007/s11213-010-9169-1.
  • Geels, F. W. 2014. “Regime Resistance against low-carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the multi-level Perspective.” Theory, Culture & Society 31 (5): 21–40. doi:10.1177/0263276414531627.
  • Geels, F. W., B. K. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell. 2017. “Sociotechnical Transitions for Deep Decarbonization.” Science 357: 1242–1444.
  • Genus, A., M. Iskandarova, G. Goggins, F. Fahy, and S. Laasko. 2021. “Alternative Energy Imaginaries: Implications for Energy Research, Policy Integration and the Transformation of Energy Systems.” Energy Research & Social Science 73: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101898.
  • Haasnoot, M., J. H. Kwakkel, W. E. Walker, and J. ter Maat. 2013. “Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways: A Method for Crafting Robust Decisions for A Deeply Uncertain World.” Global Environmental Change 23 (2): 485–498. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006.
  • Hargreaves, T., S. Hielscher, G. Seyfang, and A. Smith. 2013. “Grassroots Innovations in Community Energy: The Role of Intermediaries in Niche Development.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 868–880. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008.
  • Harvey, B., D. Burns, and K. Oswald. 2012. “Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach.” IDS Bulletin 43 (3): 101–117. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00326.x.
  • Hess, D. J. 2018. “Energy Democracy and Social Movements: A multi-level Perspective on the Politics of Sustainability Transitions.” Energy Research & Social Science 40: 177–189. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.003.
  • Hölscher, K., J. M. Wittmayer, and D. Loorbach. 2018. “Transition versus Transformation: What’s the Difference?” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007.
  • IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
  • IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report. Geneva: IPCC.
  • Isenhour, C., and K. Feng. 2016. “Decoupling and Displaced Emissions: On Swedish Consumers, Chinese Producers and Policy to Address the Climate Impact of Consumption.” Journal of Cleaner Production 134: 320–329. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.037.
  • Jacobson, M. Z., M. A. Delucchi, G. Bazouin, Z. A. F. Bauer, C. C. Heavey, E. Fisher, S. B. Morris, D. J. Y. Piekutowski, T. A. Vencill, and T. W. Yeskoo. 2015. “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) all-sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50 United States.” Energy & Environmental Science 8 (7): 2093–2117. doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J.
  • Jhagroe, S. 2018. “Transition Scientivism: On Activist Gardening and co-producing Transition Knowledge ‘From below.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Barlels and J. M. Wittmayer, 64–85, London, UK: Routledge.
  • Jorgenson, S. N., J. C. Stephens, and B. White. 2019. “Environmental Education in Transition: A Critical Review of Recent Research on Climate Change and Energy Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 50 (3): 160–171. doi:10.1080/00958964.2019.1604478.
  • Kemmis, S. 2009. “Action Research as a practice-based Practice.” Educational Action Research 17: 463–474. doi:10.1080/09650790903093284.
  • Kenner, D. 2019. Carbon Inequality: The Role of the Richest in Climate Change. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Kivimaa, P., W. Boon, S. Hyysalo, and L. Klerkx. 2019. “Towards A Typology of Intermediaries in Sustainability Transitions: A Systematic Review and A Research Agenda.” Research Policy 48: 1062–1075. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.
  • Klass, A. B., and E. J. Wilson. 2016. “Remaking Energy: The Critical Role of Energy Consumption Data.” California Law Review 104: 1095–1158.
  • Köhler, J., F. W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, F. Alkemade, et al. 2019. “An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32.
  • Kuitenbrouwer, M. 2021. “‘We Seem to Be Moving in Circles’: How Facilitative Action Research Generates Transferable and Workable Breakthroughs in Policy Networks that are Stuck.” International Journal of Action Research 17 (1): 59–80. doi:10.3224/ijar.v17i1.04.
  • Lennon, B., N. P. Dunphy, and E. Sanvincente. 2019. “Community Acceptability and the Energy Transition: A Citizens’ Perspective.” Energy, Sustainability and Society 9: 1–18. doi:10.1186/s13705-019-0218-z.
  • Loorbach, D. 2010. “Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, complexity-based Governance Framework.” Governance 23 (1): 161–183. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x.
  • Loorbach, D., N. Frantzeskaki, and F. Avelino. 2017. “Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42: 599–626. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340.
  • Markard, J., R. Raven, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects.” Research Policy 41: 955–967. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.
  • Paredis, E., and T. Block. 2018. “Negotiating Space for Mild Interventions: Action Research on the Brink between Social Movements and Government Policy in Flanders.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Bartels and J. M. Wittmayer, 113–131, London, UK: Routledge.
  • Revez, A., N. Dunphy, C. Harris, G. Mullally, B. Lennon, and C. Gaffney. 2020. “Beyond Forecasting: Using a Modified Delphi Method to Build upon Participatory Action Research into Developing Principles for a Just and Inclusive Energy Transition.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1–12. doi:10.1177/1609406920903218.
  • Rowell, L., and A. Feldman. 2019. “Knowledge Democracy and Action Research.” Educational Action Research 27 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1080/09650792.2019.1557456.
  • Saija, L., and G. Pappalardo. 2018. “An Argument for Action research-inspired Participatory Mapping.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 1–11. doi:10.1177/0739456X18817090.
  • Schot, J., L. Kanger, and G. Verbong. 2016. “The Roles of Users in Shaping Transitions to New Energy Systems.” Nature Energy 1: 1–7. doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.54.
  • Sovacool, B. K., D. J. Hess, S. Amir, F. W. Geels, R. Hirsh, L. R. Medina, C. Miller, et al. 2020. “Sociotechnical Agendas: Reviewing Future Directions for Energy and Climate Research.” Energy Research & Social Science 70 (1): 1–35.
  • Stephens, J. C., E. J. Wilson, and T. R. Peterson. 2015. Smart Grid (R)evolution: Electric Power Struggles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stephens, J. C., M. J. Burke, B. Gibian, E. Jordi, and R. Watts. 2018. “Operationalizing Energy Democracy: Challenges and Opportunities in Vermont’s Renewable Energy Transformation.” Frontiers in Communication 3 (43): 1–12. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2018.00043.
  • Stephens, J. C. 2019. “Energy Democracy: Redistributing Power to the People through Renewable Transformation.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 61 (2): 4–13.
  • Szulecki, K. 2018. “Conceptualizing Energy Democracy.” Environmental Politics 27 (1): 21–41. doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1387294.
  • Szulecki, K., and I. Overland. 2020. “Energy Democracy as A Process, and Outcome and A Goal: A Conceptual Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 69: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101768.
  • Thomas, M., T. Partridge, N. Pidgeon, B. Herr Harthorn, C. Demski, and A. Hasell. 2018. “Using Role Play to Explore Energy Perceptions in the United States and United Kingdom.” Energy Research & Social Science 45: 363–373. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.026.
  • Trajber, R., C. Walker, V. Marchezini, P. Kraftl, D. Olivato, S. Hadfield-Hill, C. Zara, and S. F. Monteiro. 2019. “Promoting Climate Change Transformation with Young People in Brazil: Participatory Action Research through a Looping Approach.” Action Research 17 (1): 87–107. doi:10.1177/1476750319829202.
  • UN. 2016. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.
  • UNESCO and UNFCCC. 2016. Action for Climate Empowerment: Guidelines for Accelerating Solutions through Education, Training and Public Awareness. Paris and Bonn: UNESCO and UNFCCC.
  • Van Veelen, B. 2018. “Negotiating Energy Democracy in Practice: Governance Processes in Community Energy Projects.” Environmental Politics 27 (4): 644–665. doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1427824.
  • Westling, E. L., and L. Sharp. 2018. “Both Critical and Applied? Action Research and Transformative Change in the UK Water Sector.” In Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions, edited by K. P. R. Bartels and J. M. Wittmayer, 21–36, London UK: Routledge.
  • Wiek, A., and D. J. Lang. 2016. “Transformational Sustainability Research Methodology.” In Sustainability Science, edited by H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen, and A. Wiek, 31–41, Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Wittmayer, J. M., and N. Schäpke. 2014. “Action, Research and Participation: Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions.” Sustainability Science 9: 483–496. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.
  • Wittmayer, J. M., N. Schäpke, F. van Steenbergen, and I. Omann. 2014. “Making Sense of Sustainability Transitions Locally: How Action Research Contributes to Addressing Societal Challenges.” Critical Policy Studies 8 (4): 465–485. doi:10.1080/19460171.2014.957336.
  • Wittmayer, J. M., F. Avelino, F. van Steenbergen, and D. Loorbach. 2017. “Actor Roles in Transition: Insights from Sociological Perspectives.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24: 45–56. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003.
  • Wittmayer, J. M., J. Backhaus, F. Avelino, B. Pel, T. Strasser, I. Kunze, and L. Zuijderwijk. 2019. “Narratives of Change: How Social Innovation Initiatives Construct Societal Transformation.” Futures 112: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2019.06.005.
  • Wittmayer, J., K. Bartels, and M. Larrea. 2021. “Introduction: Action Research, Policy and Politics.” International Journal of Action Research 17 (1): 3–17. doi:10.3224/ijar.v17i1.01.
  • York, A. M., C. Drummond Otten, S. BurnSilver, S. L. Neuberg, and J. M. Anderies. 2021. “Integrating Institutional Approaches and Decision Science to Address Climate Change: A multi-level Collective Action Research Agenda.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 52: 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.001.
  • Ystmark Bjerkan, K., M. Ryghaug, and T. Moe Skjølsvold. 2021. “Actors in Energy Transitions: Transformative Potentials at the Intersection between Norwegian Port and Transport Systems.” Energy Research & Social Science 72: 1–11.
  • Zolfagharian, M., B. Walrave, R. Raven, and A. G. L. Romme. 2019. “Studying Transitions: Past, Present, and Future.” Research Policy 48: 1–16.