Changing Systems: Actors and Networks Structures, processes and practices

Actions and behaviors of systems are driven by Inputs from broad influences (landscape) Outputs from other systems Processes that are part of subsystems

Systems can change 2 ways Change structure (how something is done, how actors operate Change function (change WHAT is done, change roles of actors)

Systems can change themselves, but with limits Systems have a “response repertoire” or general approaches that are “tried and true” Current responses reflect the methods that were used in past successes. Adaptive systems can produce change from within, drawing on their own capacities and resources

To make changes Identify existing system goals Identify new goals What changes will support the new goals? What mechanisms can support change?

But why don’t systems always change WISELY?

System goals vs. system performance The goals of the system may not be the goals of some actors within the system (especially when businesses are actors) Subsystems can develop over time – they may actually work against the system These counteractions could be intentional or unintended Responsibility for changing things is usually dispersed, not centralized Parts of the system have to work together to make change Tensions between actors makes this difficult

Adaptive change depends on social processes To make system change, changes will have to cross boundaries In order to cross boundaries, you need to know all the actors New goals need new participants - you have to enlist actors to join in New goals can threaten old groups, who may develop countermeasures to prevent or respond to the change This push/pull can produce struggle, but is good for innovation

Agency – Structure integration The ability to act - to be an agent of change Any social entity – a person, a group, a business, a university, etc. A “thing” built by actions and interactions

Why do we need to think about agency-structure? Transition requires changing technology and changing how things are done – need to understand how the two interact and affect each other

Anthony Giddens – structuration theory Recurring social practices create “structures” Examples: These structures are inseparable from practices The structures then reinforce practices The word structure is chosen partly because these resemble actual buildings – they have presence, they are visible, they impact behavior – but they don’t have to be an actual physical thing. Higher education – gathering together to share knowledge (social practice) makes universities (structure). Once enough people do it, it becomes a societal expectation. Now, going to universities is part of the expectations for getting a job.

Margaret Archer – agency and culture Recurring social practices create non-material phenomena called “cultures” Examples: Americans developed mass- produced, readily accessible autos. This in turn created a “car culture” where driving is a very desirable thing, and many systems sprung up in support of that. But now, car culture almost forces people in the US to have a car, since we don’t support really effective mass transit, expecting people to drive. Without people there can be no culture, but cultures ARE separable from practices. Cultures can have very strong influence on behavior of actors. Cultures operate on a longer timescale.

Anthony Bourdieu – habitus and field Recurring social practices create a social world. People view that world based on their place within it. This is “habitus” – where we “live” in the social world. It is made up of influences from economic status, ethnicity, locale, etc. and is mostly unconsciously absorbed by people. Example: In a particular society, a wealthy man is expected to wear an expensive Rolex watch. A person who considers himself a wealthy man will probably have a Rolex watch, That person may not even think about it much, maybe not even like Rolex, but probably will have one anyway - because it’s what wealthy men wear. And, if a person was trying to convince others he was wealthy, but didn’t have a Rolex, it might make others wonder if he was as wealthy as they thought. In this way, status is part of habitus, and puts constraints on the actor. The social world gives avenues for action to actors BUT it also constrains actions. The “field” is like the transition “landscape” – it is the bigger society where all this plays out.

Actor Network theory A framework for looking at socio-technical processes No distinction between human and non-human entities Actors (or actants) can be a person, a collective group, or even a thing like an automobile Actors are connected by their activities and interactions - this is the network Networks exist at all kinds of scales (landscape, regime, niche) at the same time

ANT as a planning tool Goes beyond systems thinking Looks at complex interplay of actors and how they are related. Actor networks work to change systems to meet their own goals. Power is based on how “central” a group of actors is to the proposed solution. Power is calculated by the power of persuasion and how many people “enroll” in the group’s proposal. Not very good at making predictions – that is the role of scenarios (more on that later.) Social justice issue: peripheral groups can’t easily change the proposals. Their interests may be compromised or maybe not even considered at all. Understanding how the network is connected gives leaders a view into whose voices are missing from the solution generation – where the gaps are.