Kimberley Roelvink,
Clara Moreno,
Menno Schokker,
Alkistis Stergiani Kartsiou
Reference [1] introduces the concept of ‘grassroot innovation’. A grassroot innovation represents a natural and spontaneous (bottom-up) creation of movement. It differentiates from competitive market-based innovations in four different levels, ranging from organization to driving motivations. Grassroot innovations find strong resistance and difficulties even in surviving. Based on the grassroot innovations idea, we have reflected on these challenges (intrinsic and diffusion types) that local bottom-up initiatives face. They are contrary to a fully top-down process, where the main challenge is that the governance of change is aligned with the underlying objectives and strong motivations of the local community. All in all, we can differentiate the proactivity of grassroot innovations from a forced response to existing government measures.
The second concept introduced in [1] is the concept of niche and strategic niche management. As described in [2] a niche is a protected space which can lead to broader societal change and regime shift. Niches cannot immediately compete against established technologies and have a hard time for market introduction, but they build internal momentum, create pressure, destabilize the regime and change the development landscape. They might not radically substitute the regime but can contribute to change by co-evolution and mutual adaption. Strategic niche management was thus developed to serve the management of ‘socially desirable innovations serving long-term goals such as sustainability’, i.e. Texel 2065.
In [1], special attention is devoted to the role of intermediary actors. Intermediary actors are essential for making niches robust and coherent, enabling them to scale-up. They need to connect the specific and isolated and generalize it as well as exchange and distribute experiences or learnt lessons (‘manage the flow of knowledge’). In other words: aggregate knowledge -draw general conclusions-, create institutional infrastructure -exchange and circulate knowledge- and reverse the knowledge -apply, guide and advice-. Additionally, intermediary actors have to work beyond and communicate with the outside: by interaction, people’s expectations can change. They can build interest, confidence and momentum, give ideas and encourage people to persevere.
Inside our ‘self-sustained Texel’ project, each of us can see ourselves as an intermediary: of our subsystem inside the whole project, and of the whole project among Texelaars. We will be able to interact with local people in January and these interactions could generate support from the local community in order to gain ‘local partners’ and ‘gain support and permission’.
The concepts of ‘interaction’ and ‘expectations’ are further analyzed in [3], where Walker et al. present a ‘cloud of interactions’ which shapes expectations in a ‘feedback loop’ where expectations also affect interactions. ‘Decisions are affected by expectations, in an iterative and accumulative process’. Focusing on case-studies of controversy and local conflict, reference [3] addresses the key limitations of the conceptual models or frameworks to become normative rather than descriptive and introduces concepts such as short-term and long-term dynamics and diversity and suggests a ‘more rounded and faceted picture’
An important question raised by [2] is: ‘under which circumstances is the successful emergence of a technological niche possible?’ If we apply this question to ICT niche in our subsystem, we had the following ideas based on reference [2]:
- ICT is embedded in a broader societal goal. We should not vision our system as ‘technological actors’ with fixed technical designs. We should not only see Teach your own as ICT, but as ICT serving the societal need of youngsters staying and working for Texel.
- ‘Teach your own’ can learn from and incorporate the seven described dimensions of a ‘learning process in multiple dimensions’: 1) technical aspects and design specifications 2) market and user preferences 3) cultural and symbolic meaning 4) infrastructure and maintenance networks 5) industry and production networks 6) regulations and government policy 7) societal and environmental needs.
- Education as a form of interaction can change the expectations of young students (towards e.g. prospective future jobs in the island) by second-order learning or ‘changes in cognitive frames and assumptions rather than accumulation of facts and data’. In other words: education is more than knowledge transfer.
However, the local context and circumstances of Texel will play a major role. For this reason in this Chapter we will examine the current situation of Texel regarding our subsystem and which of these circumstances go in the desired direction towards our goal. As stated in [1] different areas have a locally-specific set of issues and need different societal functions. For example: we have recently found that a high school in the island of Samsø closed three years ago. However: Samsø does not have the same actors and the same culture… so challenges are not ‘readily transferable’: ‘it is impossible to replicate success in one local project; attention must be payed to local context in which projects emerge’.
All in all, the local context of Texel is vital for the success of our ideas. Our proposals are shaped by the context, but they can also reshape this context: ‘this captures the importance of context in not only being shaped by the socio-technical innovation but also in actively shaping it’ [4].
Individual interpretations
Grassroot innovation
|
Team member |
Interpretation |
Comments related to Texel sub-system |
|
Alkistis |
A grassroot innovation is a movement initiated spontaneously (bottom-up) in a local context. It is usually driven by a more emotional and socially sensitive approach. |
There are doubts on how a grassroot innovation could be the answer for the teach your own sub-system transition. Students and parents, the starting point of a bottom-up process,seem to be more of affected rather than acting groups. It would be possible if they were provided with the right incentives though, but it would require much more effort. |
|
Clara |
A grassroot innovation differentiates from market-based innovations in a stronger sense of communion and egagement with sustainability. They are bottom-up processes carried out by minoritary organisations |
The challenges faced by grassroot innovations could be representative of a fully bottom-up process by small groups. 'Teach your own' subsystem is not really comparable to grassroot innovations. |
|
Menno |
|
|
|
Kimberley |
|
|
Intermediary actors
|
Team member |
Interpretation |
Comments related to Texel sub-system |
|
Alkistis |
Intermediary actors are people who have been involved in particular projects and gained experience and knowledge which can transfer in similar transition procedures. Their contribution in transition processes is valuable. |
Søren Hermansen could be considered an intermediary actor; while sharing his experience in Samso in public presentations, he gives valuable feedback and highlights the must-focus aspects of a transition. |
|
Clara |
Intermediary actors play a major role in transitions. They act as a link, generalising the lessons learnt in different projects and applying them back in different ones to provide feedback. |
We can see ourselves -in small scale- as intermediary actors between our subsystem and the 'Texel 2065' project. We need to learn about the local context and find and diffuse ideas that match with it. Moreover: in 'Teach your own' teachers are intermediary actors in the difussion of knowledge. |
|
Menno |
|
|
|
Kimberley |
|
|
Interaction
|
Team member |
Interpretation |
Comments related to Texel sub-system |
|
Alkistis |
Interaction requires presence, physical or virtual. Through interaction processes actors communicate ideas and form expectations. |
Expectations of the target groups in the teach you own subsystem is where we should be based on for initiating or supporting the transition. Their expectations can be transformed into incentives; interaction is then both the intermediary step and a necessity during the whole transition process. |
|
Clara |
Interaction shapes people's expectations. Interaction takes places by communication in physical/virtual networks, where best practises and lessons are shared. |
The expectations of local people regarding a self-sustained Texel shape their level of engagement/ acceptance/proactiveness with the initiative. For example for 'teach your own', the expectations of students towards future job opportunities are important for them to stay or leave. Currently, their expectations towards the university life in the mainland are decisive. Expectations also affect teachers, the school board, parents and municipality...and they are shaped by interaction with people inside and outside the island, as well as 'pass-by' people as us.
Moreover, 'Teach your own' is affected by virtual interaction and virtual networks and platforms. |
|
Menno |
|
|
|
Kimberley |
|
|
References:
[1]: Hargreaves, T., et al. (2013). "Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development." Global Environmental Change 23(5): 868-880.
[2]: Schot, J. and F. W. Geels (2008). "Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20(5): 537-554.
[3]: Walker et al., (2011). Symmetries, expectations, dynamics and contexts: A framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. In P. Devine-Wright (Ed.), Renewable Energy and the public: From NIMBY to participation. London: Earthscan
[4]: Raven, R. P., et al. (2008). "The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28(6): 464-477