Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223818755
CITATIONS
READS
35
149
2 AUTHORS:
Raghu Garud
Joel Gehman
University of Alberta
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Research Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business, 431 Business Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States
University of Alberta, Alberta School of Business, 4-21A Business Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 October 2010
Received in revised form 28 April 2011
Accepted 18 July 2011
Available online 4 April 2012
Keywords:
Sustainability transitions
Multilevel perspective
Path dependence
Dynamic capabilities
Actor-network theory
Narratives
a b s t r a c t
Journeys to a sustainable future have become important to industry, government and research. In this
paper, we examine evolutionary, relational and durational perspectives on sustainability journeys. Each
perspective emphasizes different facets of sustainability shifts in selection environments, recongurations of emergent networks, and intertemporal comparisons and contrasts. Drawing on our analysis, we
discuss implications for sustainability policy, strategy and research.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past several decades, issues around sustainability
have become considerably important to those in industry, government and society at large. Commonly dened by the United
Nations World Commission on Economic Development (WCED)
as meet[ing] the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs
(WCED, 1987: 43), sustainability presents several challenges. First,
there are the challenges of adapting to new selection environments
(Geels, 2002; Kemp et al., 1998). For instance, given concerns over
climate change, numerous actors confront questions around the
sustainability of their reliance on fossil fuels. Second, the meaning of sustainability is not given, but instead may vary depending
upon the social and material networks that become implicated
(Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005; Pinch and Bijker, 1987). For instance,
whereas some consider hydraulic fracturing (a technique for recovering natural gas trapped in shale) to be safe and proven, others
consider it to be problematic and controversial. Third, sustainability
is an intertemporal concept, one that explicitly anchors performance in the present on a series of comparisons and contrasts
Corresponding author.
Corresponding author at: University of Alberta, Alberta School of Business, 4-21A
Business Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada.
E-mail addresses: rgarud@psu.edu (R. Garud), joel.gehman@business.ualberta.ca
(J. Gehman).
0048-7333/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.009
1
We have been inspired by the work of Bergson (1934/2007) in our choice of this
word.
981
982
Fig. 1. Evolutionary perspective: This gure shows the transition from one sociotechnical regime to another as a consequence of exogenous niche innovations and landscape
changes, as depicted by Geels and Schot (2007). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.
readily visible, EVs have a long and checkered history. At the turn
of the nineteenth century, EVs lost out to intense competition
from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICs). But why did EVs
lose out? According to Flinks (1970: 307) history of the early
automobile: No one has yet presented a convincing argument
that the invariable association of the gasoline automobile with the
creative automotive engineer-entrepreneur was due to anything
other than the inherently superior technological feasibility of the
internal combusting engine over the steam and electric power
for the motorcar at that time. Kirsch (2000: 17) points out that
this represents the orthodox view for the demise of electric
vehicles deriving from an evolutionary perspective; ICs won out
because they were better suited to the selection pressures of the
then-prevailing sociotechnical regime.
In sum, from an evolutionary perspective, EVs lost out to ICs
because of their inherent inferiority. And, as a result, any attempt
to resuscitate the EV would have to overcome these selection
pressures.
One prominent attempt to resuscitate the EV occurred in the
1990s with the introduction of the GM Impact, a vehicle hailed
as the car of the future when unveiled at the 1990 Los Angeles
Auto Show. The car drew so much interest from consumers and
the media that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed
a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate later that year. Consistent
with the MLP logic of overcoming evolutionary selection pressures,
this policy attempted to create a protective niche by progressively
983
2
This ontology can be found in the work of scholars such as Hutchins (1995),
Leonardi and Barley (2010), and Orlikowski and Scott (2008).
Fig. 2. Relational perspective: This gure shows the emergence and transformation
of the bicycle through the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material
as depicted by Pinch and Bijker (1987). Reprinted with permission from the MIT
Press.
become enrolled (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1986), the framing strategies employed (Garud and Rappa, 1994; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008),
and the outcomes of trials of strength (Latour, 1987).
Such trials of strength are evident in the very meaning of
an externality (which is taken for granted from an evolutionary
perspective). Rather than simply a market failure that might be
remedied through institutional work (Coase, 1960; Lawrence and
Suddaby, 2006), the relational perspective conceptualizes externalities as the emergent and ongoing overows that result as
disparate social groups interpret the social and material entanglements involved (Callon, 1998). For instance, any emission must rst
be measured before its sustainability impacts can be assessed. To
measure these emissions, science comes into play.3 Yet the science
behind the measurement of emissions may itself be in-the-making,
based on models of the harm that emissions may cause (Edwards,
2010). Moreover, science itself can become politicized, generating
new overows (Callon et al., 2009). When such overows occur, the
dynamics around sustainability shift as new social groups emerge
and new materialities become implicated, engendering new discourses around what sustainability is and what the journey entails
(Karne, 2010).
3
It is interesting to note Shivas (1993: 2122) arguments about science here.
She argues that: Within the structure of modern science itself are characteristics
which prevent the perception of linkages. Fragmented into narrow disciplines and
reductionist categories, scientic knowledge has a blind spot with respect to relational properties and relational impacts. It tends to decontextualize its own context.
Through the process of decontextualization, the negative and destructive impacts
of science on nature and society are externalized and rendered invisible.
984
4
All of this suggests a far more uid view of transitions than does the punctuated
equilibrium model (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). Rather than clean shifts from the
old to the new (Adner and Kapoor, 2010) or sharp distinctions between competency
enhancing and destroying changes (Tushman and Anderson, 1986), the relational
perspective entertains transformative processes where the old and new become
entangled, or where competencies may be enhanced and destroyed simultaneously
through transformative processes. For instance, Ansari and Garud (2009) showed
how those involved in the transition from 2G to 3G wireless networks not only had
to grapple with social and material realities, but then had to make sense of whether
and how to proceed in real-time as the parameters governing the transition (such
as customer preferences) changed even as it was occurring. In this case, the process
stabilized temporarily on what came to be known as 2.5G.
5
According to Kirsch (personal communication, 2011), the U.S. Bureau of the Census conated apples and oranges, concealing the extent to which local patterns and
standards prevailed. For instance, electric taxicabs of the Electric Vehicle Company
(EVC) and its operating companies were counted in the same production table as
the owner-operated internal combustion vehicles being produced and sold in small
batches. In short, the Census did not know what to count because the industry itself
was in such a state of ux that the categories for enumeration had not yet stabilized.
6
Taken together, the analyses by Kirsch (2000) and Shnayerson (1996) suggest
that different cars became associated with different social groups: EVs for women
and other high status actors, and ICs for the common man. In that case, it may have
been these differential associations, rather than objective performance criteria, that
prevailed. Such an understanding resonates with Pinch and Bijkers (1987) analysis
of the bicycle as shaped by social groups.
7
For instance, drawing on an analysis of daily showering, Shove and Walker
(2010) concluded that (un)sustainability is not just a problem of technological innovation, but more fundamentally, a problem of practices.
8
A technological frame structures the interactions among the actors of a relevant
social group. As Bijker (1995: 123) explained, it is not an individuals characteristic, nor a characteristic of systems or institutions; technological frames are located
between actors, not in actors or above actors. . . A technological frame comprises all
elements that inuence the interactions within relevant social groups and lead to the
attribution of meanings to technical artifacts and thus to constituting technology.
9
GM discontinued its EV1 program in 2002, and repossessed all cars still on the
road. These were primarily crushed, though a few were stripped down and given to
museums and educational institutions.
10
Many of these issues are evident in the Greek myth of Ulysses and the Sirens.
Ulysses, setting out to be with his wife, Penelope, knew that his preferences would
change for the Sirens as he sailed past their island. To overcome their call, Ulysses
bound himself to the mast of his ship and plugged the ears of his sailors to ensure
that they would sail home despite his pleas to stop. Binding commitments and deaf
ears cannot be a solution to intertemporal problems. Binding ourselves to the mast
and turning a deaf ear to the concerns of others who are impacted adversely may
result in an escalation of commitments to a course of action that exacerbates the
985
986
12
Basalla (1988: 212) offers several examples and reasons as to why technological
change couched as progress from an evolutionary perspective could be problematic.
The contemporary American approach to industrial agriculture produces 2.8 times
the yield of grain compared to the Mexican cut-burn approach. However, if one were
to use a different metric, energy output to input ratio, then the Mexican system
(11:1) outperforms the American (3:1).
13
Marx (1867/2007) noted that with the advance of capitalism, what were once
considered to be negative externalities were often transformed into valuable products a re-employment of excrements of production in his words. He offered these
observations based on William Henry Perkins discovery that tar residue from coalred factories could be broken down into a purple dye called mauve. With the
emergence of more dyes, coal tar became a positive rather than a negative externality. This example illustrates another facet of intertemporality how something that
was stigmatized in the past as not being viable may one day become so as discoveries
occur in science and technology and as social preferences change.
14
With the concept of dure Bergson seeks to overcome a mechanistic understanding of time. Instead, he denes time in a way whereby the past is conserved in the
present moment, even as the present moment is dilated or extended into the future.
987
Fig. 3. Durational perspective: This gure is a temporally emplotted diagram of research in the human genome project as depicted by Mane and Brner (2004). It shows
the backing and forthing (dure) in the development of the human genome project and how todays frontiers of the project today are paradoxically returning to the
interior(i.e., previous efforts that met resistances that led to accommodations (Pickering, 1993) as computational power increased and gene sequencing emerged),
allowing old questions to be re-posed in productive ways. Reprinted with permission from the National Academy of Sciences.
988
Table 1
Different perspectives on sustainability journeys.
Facets of sustainability
Perspectives on
sustainability journeys
Core
mechanisms
Shifts in landscapes
Evolutionary
Selection
Protected niches
Dynamic capabilities as
reconguration of resources
Reconguration of
emergent networks
Intertemporal dynamics
Relational
Translation
Durational
Dure
Facilitating hybrid
forums
Coordinating activities
in the thick of time
Dynamic capabilities as
framing and re-framing
Dynamic capabilities as ability
to re-narrate
Rick Wagoner, another former CEO of GM, stated that axing the
EV1 electric-car program was the worst decision during his tenure
(Green, 2006). Echoing these sentiments, Larry Burns, GMs head
of research and development claimed, If we could turn back the
hands of time, we could have had the Chevrolet Volt 10 years earlier (Naughton, 2007). Other recent EV initiatives include Better
Place, a California start-up, and a Renault-Nissan collaboration to
implement a whole new system for EVs in Israel. An impetus for
this initiative is Renaults knowledge and expertise in EVs based on
its earlier foray into this eld (Callon, 1980, 1987). In this sense,
this initiative too involves going back to the future.
5. Implications for policy
So far, we have discussed different facets of sustainability and
introduced three ontological perspectives based on these facets.
There clearly are implications for policy that each perspective offers
which we explore in this section (see Table 1). For instance, policy
initiatives driven by the evolutionary perspective focus on sustaining new ideas that otherwise would have been selected out. The
relational perspective suggests the creation of hybrid forums to
facilitate interactions between concerned stakeholders as sustainability journeys unfold. The narrative perspective sensitizes us to
the temporal issues associated with policy initiatives. We explore
these in greater detail below.
15
Even rms can create strategic niches through their actions. For instance, in
the 1960s, General Electric and Westinghouse offered utility companies subsidies
equivalent to 50% in an effort to spur demand for nuclear plants, assuming that once
the market was established they would be able to recoup their investments.
The evolutionary perspective conceives of policymakers as sitting outside of, and thus, disassociated from, the very systems
in which they are supposed to intervene (Rip, 2006; Shove and
Walker, 2007, 2010). By comparison, from the relational perspective there is neither an outside nor an inside to which
policymakers might retreat. Instead, they too derive their capacities
for action from their networks of associations (Callon, 1998). In the
case of complex and contested issues such as sustainability, policymakers are especially dependent on the information available to
them from others.
The dynamics that unfold when regulators and evaluators consider themselves to be part of the emerging social and material
ensemble, rather than separate, is evident in the emergence of
wind turbine elds in Denmark and the US (Garud and Karne,
2003). In the former, policy actors co-developed evaluation criteria in collaboration with other eld-level actors, shared data that
emerged from their comparative tests that led to scientic knowledge, and modulated their market mechanisms in tune with the
specic needs of the eld at different points in time (this is consistent with a transition studies perspective on innovation, see
Weber and Rohracher, 2012). In contrast, policy actors in the US
were driven by an evolutionary logic, creating a selection environment with testing standards based on generic engineering science
design knowledge that did not co-emerge with the eld. The policies that were enacted did little to increase co-involvement of
actors in the US wind turbine eld, giving the interventions an
episodic quality.
Not only does the relational perspective conceive of policymakers as part and parcel of the conicts that they are supposed to
modulate, there are instances when policymakers may themselves
be the source of conicts. For instance, strategic niche management
scholars advocate the conduct of societal experiments (Nill and
Kemp, 2009). But given the asymmetries involved in the format
and performance of these experiments, they are bound to generate overows whether in real time or over time (Callon, 1998;
Coase, 1960). This is because no practice is inherently sustainable
or unsustainable. Instead, what counts, who counts, and how and
when it should be counted are all part of the dispute (Karne, 2010).
The resulting problem is one of sensemaking, not information processing (Weick, 1995). Moreover, contrary to Coases (1960) view
of institutions as the solution to the problem of externalities, even
institutional arrangements may be contested, as is evident in the
case of climate change (e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
For these reasons, the relational perspective has proposed a
very different approach to policy what it calls hybrid forums
as a solution to the twofold problem of expertise and representation (Callon et al., 2009; Mulder et al., 2011; see also Musiolik
and Markard, 2011). Rather than delegating responsibility to politicians and scientists, hybrid forums bring experts and laypersons
together with legislators and citizens. Conferences represent one
such hybrid forum for conguring and reconguring both emergent and established elds (Garud, 2008; Lampel and Meyer, 2008).
Hybrid forums such as these serve as coordination devices for
collective sensemaking, imaginization and enactment (Morgan,
1993; Weick, 1995). They also provide mechanisms for translating
complex and culturally embedded practices across contexts and
communities through dialogue (Sawyer, 2003; Tsoukas, 2009).
5.3. Policy implications of the durational perspective
The core policy implications from the evolutionary and relational perspectives relate to protecting nascent ideas in niches and
creating hybrid forums to foster productive engagement of multiple social groups. The intertemporal perspective offers temporal
structuring as yet another policy consideration. By this we mean
facilitating the coordination of the actions of disparate actors in
the thick of time (where future, past and present meet). Not only
does this imply coordination of temporal rhythms (i.e., chronological entrainment), but also cultivation of moments when the time
is right (i.e., kairotic moments) (Garud et al., 2011; Orlikowski and
Yates, 2002).
Because this has not been theorized before, our observations
are far more tentative and offered here to foster a dialogue among
scholars to explore novel mechanisms. The core thrust of our
argument is to think about sociotechnical agencements (a term
introduced by Callon, 2005 to suggest that agency exists in arrangements) to contain temporal elements as well (Garud et al., 2011).
That is, we encourage scholars to explore different kinds of agencements that allow actors to coordinate their activities in the thick of
time, rather than be bound by it.
One example will give a sense of the kind of mechanism we have
in mind. The current US patent system has intertemporal properties. Specically, patents grant inventors monopoly protection
for a period of time as an incentive to explore. We could think of
this as a protected niche from an evolutionary perspective or even
a hybrid forum from a relational perspective (the examination
process involving a number of social groups including a person
having ordinary skills in the art to whom a novel idea is not obvious). But, from a durational perspective, patents are valuable policy
instruments that allow actors to be in the thick of time.
Some explanation is in order to understand the latter statement. A patent is as much an act of protection as it is an act of
989
990
991
992
16
Hindcasting, in this companys case, is using data on environmental spills and
releases from some future period and then looking into the past to evaluate levels of
contamination (and resultant injury) for purposes of tallying up total externalities
to be compensated or remediated.
993
Czarniawska, B., 2007. Shadowing and Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in
Modern Societies. Copenhagen Business School Press, Herndon.
Czarniawska, B., 2008. Alterity/identity interplay in image construction. In: Barry,
D., Hansen, H. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of New Approaches in Management
and Organization. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 4962.
Czarniawska, B., Sevn, G. (Eds.), 1996. Translating Organizational Change. de
Gruyter, New York.
David, P.A., 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review
75, 332337.
DiMaggio, P.J., 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker, L.G. (Ed.),
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Ballinger,
Cambridge, pp. 321.
Doganova, L., Eyquem-Renault, M., 2009. What do business models do? Innovation
devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy 38, 15591570.
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research
Policy 11, 147162.
Douglas, M., 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Dusyk, N., Berkhout, T., Burch, S., Coleman, S., Robinson, J., 2009. Transformative
energy efciency and conservation: a sustainable development path approach
in British Columbia, Canada. Energy Efciency 2 (4), 387400.
Edwards, P.N., 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic
Management Journal 21, 11051121.
Elias, N., 1982. Power & Civility. Pantheon Books, New York.
Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103,
9621023.
Farjoun, M., 2010. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Academy of
Management Review 35, 202225.
Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T., 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines
as a source of exibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48,
94121.
Fenn, J., Raskino, M., 2008. Mastering the Hype Cycle. Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Flink, J.J., 1970. America Adopts the Automobile, 18851910. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Garud, R., 2008. Conferences as venues for the conguration of emerging organizational elds: the case of cochlear implants. Journal of Management Studies 45,
10611088.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Karne, P., 2010a. Categorization by association: nuclear technology and emission-free electricity. In: Sine, W.D., David, R. (Eds.), Research in
the Sociology of Work, vol. 21. Emerald, Bingley, pp. 5193.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., 2011. Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: lessons from 3M corporation. Organization Studies 32,
737767.
Garud, R., Karne, P., 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32, 277300.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Karne, P., 2010b. Path dependence or path creation?
Journal of Management Studies 47, 760774.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Sambamurthy, V., 2006. Emergent by design: performance and transformation at Infosys Technologies. Organization Science 17,
277286.
Garud, R., Munir, K., 2008. From transaction to transformation costs: the case of
Polaroids SX-70 camera. Research Policy 37, 690705.
Garud, R., Nayyar, P.R., 1994. Transformative capacity: continual structuring by
intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal 15, 365385.
Garud, R., Rappa, M.A., 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: the
case of cochlear implants. Organization Science 5, 344362.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy 31,
12571274.
Geels, F.W., 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the
multi-level perspective. Research Policy 39, 495510.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy 36, 399417.
Genus, A., Coles, A.-M., 2008. Rethinking the multilevel perspective of technological
transitions. Research Policy 37, 14361445.
Glasmeier, A., 1991. Technological discontinuities and exible production networks:
the case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy 20,
469485.
Green, G., 2006. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Motor Trend 58, 9094.
Greimas, A.J., 1987. On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Hatch, M.J., Weick, K.E., 1998. Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis.
Organization Science 9, 543555.
Healey, J.R., 2000. California may soften electric car mandate. USA Today, Jun. 2 ed.,
p. 3B.
Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A., 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24, 9971010.
Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A., 2009. Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along
a developmental path. Strategic Organization 7, 91102.
Helfat, C.E., Winter, S.G., 2011. Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities:
strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal 32,
12431250.
Hughes, T.P., 1993. Networks of Power: Electrication in Western Society,
18801930. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Hutchins, E., 1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge.
994
Irvine, J., Martin, B.R., 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. Pinter, London.
Jarzabkowski, P., 2005. Strategy as Practice: An Activity-based Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Jrgensen, U., 2012. Mapping and navigating transition: the multilevel perspective
compared with arenas of development. Research Policy 41, 9961010.
Kaplan, S., 2008. Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organization
Science 19, 729752.
Kaplan, S., 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: an inquiry into the epistemic culture and
machinery of strategy making. Organization Science 22, 320346.
Kaplan, S., Tripsas, M., 2008. Thinking about technology: applying a cognitive lens
to technical change. Research Policy 37, 790805.
Karne, P., 2010. Material disruptions in electricity systems: can wind power t in
the existing electricity system? In: Akrich, M., Barthe, Y., Muniesa, F., Mustar, P.
(Eds.), Dbordements: Mlanges offerts Michel Callon. Presses de Mines, Paris,
pp. 223240.
Kauffman, S.A., 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kemp, R., 1994. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the
problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 26, 10231046.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for
managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14, 7891.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through
processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10, 175195.
Kirsch, D.A., 2000. The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Lampel, J., 2001. Show and tell: product demonstrations and path creation of technological change. In: Garud, R., Karne, P. (Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation.
Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 303328.
Lampel, J., Meyer, A.D., 2008. Field conguring events as structuring mechanisms:
how conferences, ceremonies and trade shows constitute new technologies,
industries, and marketskets. Journal of Management Studies 45, 10251035.
Latour, B., 1986. The powers of association. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief.
Routledge, London, pp. 264280.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Latour, B., 1994. On technical mediation. Common Knowledge 3, 2964.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford University Press, New York.
Law, J., 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese
expansion. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (Eds.), Social Construction of
Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 111134.
Law, J., 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In: Turner, B.S.
(Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Blackwell, Malden,
pp. 141158.
Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R., 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg, S.R.,
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B., Nord, W.R. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization
Studies. , 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 215254.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13, 111125.
Leonardi, P.M., Barley, S.R., 2010. Whats under construction here? Social action,
materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing.
Academy of Management Annals 4, 151.
Levinthal, D.A., 1997a. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43,
934950.
Levinthal, D.A., 1997b. The three faces of organizational learning: wisdom, inertia, and discovery. In: Garud, R., Nayyar, P.R., Shapira, Z.B. (Eds.), Technological
Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge University Press, New York,
pp. 167180.
Levitt, B., March, J.G., 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14,
319340.
Lounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and
the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal 22, 545564.
MacKenzie, D., 2003. An equation and its worlds: bricolage, exemplars, disunity and
performativity in nancial economics. Social Studies of Science 33, 831868.
MacKenzie, D., 2009. Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics
of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34, 440455.
MacKenzie, D., Millo, Y., 2003. Constructing a market, performing theory: the historical sociology of a nancial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology
109, 107145.
Maddigan, R.J., Chern, W.S., Gallagher Rizy, C., 1984. Rural electrication: its future
in the USA. Energy Policy 12, 157169.
Mane, K.K., Brner, K., 2004. Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 (Suppl.
1), 52875290.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2, 7187.
March, J.G., 1999. Research on organizations: hopes for the past and lessons from
the future. Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier 1, 6983.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging eld
of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41, 955967.
Markard, J., Truffer, B., 2008. Technological innovation systems and the multilevel
perspective: towards an integrated framework. Research Policy 37, 596615.
Marx, K., 1867/2007. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Cosimo, New York.
Meyer, A.D., Gaba, V., Colwell, K.A., 2005. Organizing far from equilibrium: nonlinear
change in organizational elds. Organization Science 16, 456473.
Moore, B., 2000. Do 10 million Californians want EVs? An interview with Michael
Coates. EV World.
Morgan, G., 1993. Imaginization: New Mindsets of Seeing, Organizing and Managing.
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Mulder, K., Ferrer, D., van Lente, H. (Eds.), 2011. What is Sustainable Technology?
Perceptions, Paradoxes and Possibilities. Greenleaf Publishing, Shefeld.
Musiolik, J., Markard, J., 2011. Creating and shaping innovation systems: formal networks in the innovation system for stationary fuel cells in Germany. Energy
Policy 39, 19091922.
Naughton, K., 2007. Comin through! Newsweek, Mar. 12 ed.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Nicolini, D., 2009. Zooming in and out: studying practices by switching theoretical
lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies 30, 13911418.
Nill, J., Kemp, R., 2009. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies:
from niche to paradigm? Research Policy 38, 668680.
OConnor, E., 2002. Storied business: typology, intertextuality, and trafc in
entrepreneurial narrative. Journal of Business Communications 39, 3654.
Oliver, C., 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16, 145179.
Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V., 2008. Sociomateriality: challenging the separation
of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals 2,
433474.
Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., 2002. Its about time: temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science 13, 684700.
Pacheco de Almeida, G., Zemsky, P., 2007. The timing of resource development and
sustainable competitive advantage. Management Science 53, 651666.
Paine, C., 2006. Who Killed the Electric Car? Sony Pictures Classics, New York.
Pandza, K., Thorpe, R., 2009. Creative search and strategic sensemaking: missing
dimensions in the concept of dynamic capabilities. British Journal of Management 20, S118S131.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations. Harper & Row,
New York.
Pickering, A., 1993. The mangle of practice: agency and emergence in the sociology
of science. American Journal of Sociology 99, 559589.
Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E., 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the
sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benet each other. In:
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (Eds.), Social Construction of Technological
Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1750.
Porac, J.F., 1997. Local rationality, global blunders, and the boundaries of technological choice: lessons from IBM and DOS. In: Garud, R., Nayyar, P.R., Shapira, Z.B.
(Eds.), Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 129146.
Rao, H., Monin, P., Durand, R., 2005. Border crossing: bricolage and the erosion of
categorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review 70,
968991.
Raven, R.P.J.M., 2006. Towards alternative trajectories? Recongurations in the
Dutch electricity regime. Research Policy 35, 581595.
Ricoeur, P., 1984. Time and Narrative. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rip, A., 2006. A co-evolutionary approach to reexive governance and its ironies. In:
Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds.), Reexive Governance for Sustainable
Development. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp. 82100.
Rip, A., 2010. Processes of entanglement. In: Akrich, M., Barthe, Y., Muniesa, F., Mustar, P. (Eds.), Dbordements: Mlanges offerts Michel Callon. Presses de Mines,
Paris, pp. 381392.
Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (Eds.),
Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 2. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp.
327399.
Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 1531.
Safarzynska,
K., Frenken, K., van den Bergh, J., 2012. Evolutionary theorizing and
modelling of sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41, 10111024.
Sawyer, R.K., 2003. Improvised Dialogues. Ablex, Westport, CT.
Schn, D.A., 1996. Reective conversation with materials. In: Winograd, T. (Ed.),
Bringing Design to Software. ACM Press, New York.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1942/1994. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge, New
York.
Shiva, V., 1993. The Violence of the Green Revolution. Zed Books, New York.
Shnayerson, M., 1996. The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GMs Revolutionary
Electric Vehicle. Random House, New York.
Shove, E., Walker, G., 2007. Caution! Transitions ahead: politics, practice,
and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A 39,
763770.
Shove, E., Walker, G., 2010. Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday
life. Research Policy 39, 471476.
Simon, H.A., 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 106, 467482.
Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy 41, 10251036.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy 34, 14911510.
Sonenshein, S., 2010. Were changing or are we? Untangling the role of progressive,
regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation.
Academy of Management Journal 53, 477512.
995
Utterback, J.M., Abernathy, W.J., 1975. A dynamic model of process and product
innovation. Omega 3, 639656.
Van de Ven, A.H., Garud, R., 1989. A framework for understanding the emergence of
new industries. In: Rosenbloom, R.S., Burgelman, R.A. (Eds.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, vol. 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp.
195225.
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., Venkataraman, S., 1999. The Innovation
Journey. Oxford University Press, New York.
van den Belt, H., Rip, A., 1987. The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic dye
chemistry. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (Eds.), Social Construction of
Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 135158.
van Lente, H., Rip, A., 1998. Expectations in technological developments: an example of prospective structures to be lled in by agency. In: Disco, C., van der
Meulen, B. (Eds.), Getting New Technologies Together. de Gruyter, New York,
pp. 195220.
van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Crvers, R., Kemp, R., Martens, P., 2008. Governance
for sustainable development: a framework. Sustainable Development 16,
410421.
Vergne, J.P., Durand, R., 2010. The missing link between the theory and empirics of
path dependence: conceptual clarication, testability issue, and methodological
implications. Journal of Management Studies 47, 736759.
Wade-Benzoni, K.A., 2002. A golden rule over time: reciprocity in intergenerational
allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal 45, 10111028.
Weber, M., Rohracher, H., 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation
policies for transformative change. Research Policy 41, 10371047.
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
White, J.B., 2006. GM, Toyota bet hybrid green, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12 ed.
Winter, S.G., Cattani, G., Dorsch, A., 2007. The value of moderate obsession: insights
from a new model of organizational search. Organization Science 18, 403419.
World Commission on Environment, Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13, 339351.