The socio-political dimensions of sustainability transitions: Applying discursive approaches to examine energy transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the IPCC’s (2018) Special Report on 1.5°C, international climate scientists emphasized that increased climate change is expected to impose considerable, wide-ranging impacts on natural and human systems. The Special Report also offers high-level pathways for social and technological change that could be expected to mitigate the risks associated with climate change. Acknowledging that social and technological systems are inextricably linked, the report refers to these pathways as involving socio-technical systems. Sustainability transitions is an emerging field of research that has centred the importance of socio-technical systems (Geels, 2019; Köhler et al., 2019; Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012). Sustainability transitions are understood to be inherently political because various actors involved in these processes may contest the overarching goal and/or approach to achieving that goal (Meadowcroft, 2011; Shove & Walker, 2007). While socio-political dimensions are acknowledged to be important for understanding sustainability transitions, emphasizing these dimensions has remained a challenge in the literature (Geels, 2019). \n \nIn this dissertation, the contests to reinforce or to reinvent institutional structures that serve to organize actor behaviour are conceptualized as the socio-political dimensions of sustainability transitions. A theoretical framework, the terrain of discursive struggle, is presented with the aim of conceptualizing the range of institutional structures that might be challenged during sustainability transitions and identifying where discursive approaches may be applied to illuminate those institutional struggles. The primary question of the dissertation is: How and to what extent can discursive approaches be applied to understand the socio-political dimensions of sustainability transitions? To that end, three case studies explore the terrain of discursive struggle associated with energy sector transitions by employing varied discursive approaches to analyze data from different discursive forums with distinct contexts. \n \nThe first study investigates how monopoly regime actors – namely, local distribution companies’ representatives in Ontario, Canada – understand and communicate potential innovation in their sector. The second study examines the narratives and framing in newspaper coverage of energy storage technologies in California and Hawaii (United States) over nearly a decade (2010 to 2019). The third study explores how Twitter data can inform the study of the socio-political dimensions of sustainability transitions by leveraging tweets that include #ONpoli (a hashtag for discussing the politics of Ontario, Canada) and that reference energy and electricity issues. A cross-analysis of the three studies reveals broader conclusions related to the terrain of discursive struggle. \n \nGiven the wide-ranging implications of sustainability transitions, the terrain of discursive struggle associated with sustainability is necessarily vast: there are many potential institutional structures that will be reinforced or reinvented during sustainability transitions. The terrain of discursive struggle helps to conceptualize the range of socio-political contests associated with sustainability transitions, but it does not identify those contests that are most meaningful to examine. While discourses construct institutions and discursive struggles can reshape institutional structures, not all discursive struggle is accessible to a researcher. Therefore, researchers aiming to understand institutional change associated with a sustainability transition must focus their efforts on specific discursive struggles that are accessible and that they believe will illuminate meaningful aspects of institutional change. Across the studies, this dissertation makes empirical, methodological, and theoretical contributions to knowledge. Collectively, the studies offer insights regarding the application of discursive approaches to understanding the socio-political dimensions of sustainability transitions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".