Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An experimental culture in the making?
Uses of sustainability experiments & the case Finland
Annukka Berg (D.Soc.Sc.)SYKE, Environmental Policy Centre
YHYS Fall Colloquium, November 19-20, 2015
2
The structure of the presentation● Sustainability experiments
○ Definitions○ Use categories
● A short history of Finland’s quest to become an experimentalist society
● How to approach the promotion experimental culture in Finland? – applying the use categories
3
Disclaimer: This presentation includes thinking-in-progress
and notes about a process that is currently taking place. Thus, comments are welcome and
floor is open for discussion.
4
The potential and risks of experimenting
Sustainability experiments
5
Why sustainability experiments matter to me?● PhD on national sustainable
consumption and production programmes (2006-2012)○ Frustration
● Stockholm’s congestion charge experiment (2005-2006)● Well evaluated● Communal referendum
● The haunting question: What if all the limited resources driving sustainability would be directed to action?● A side-project since 2008
6
● In the recent literature, defined in various ways (see e.g. Bulkeley & Castán Broto 2013; Kivimaa et al. 2015; Berkhout et al. 2010)○ Sustainability experiments have multiple faces
● A minimalistic definition: (1) A concrete act that is(2) novel (in its context),(3) temporary (restricted space and scale) and(4) reversible (open to failure) and(5) the outcomes of which are not known beforehand
● Other typical features: involves a network of actors, fosters learning, seeks to contribute to broader societal development (directional)
Sustainability experiments
7
“The three rights” of experimental culture- A popular definition(1) The right to act(2) The right to plan less (3) The right to fail
-> Taking (restricted) action/steps even though consensus, resources, and knowledge would be lacking
-> Experimentation essentially about learning by doing
-> Can be contrasted with deliberating, studying or planning a case/question
8
● The idea: to take into account that sustainability experiments a institutionally ambiguous form of governance (Hajer 2003)○ Open-minded policy analysis process: what is
meaningful and legitimate?
● Actors use (the opportunities provided by) sustainability experiments for various purposes○ Can be categorized: framing experiments from use
perspective○ Knowledge use literature (e.g. Hawe et al 2009)
The use perspective to sustainability experiments
9
● An article on analysing Finland’s sustainable consumption and production programme from use perspective (Berg & Hukkinen 2011). Use categories:
(1) scripted/instrumental;(2) deliberative/conceptual; (3) political/tactical; (4) ritual; (5) unprompted/unanticipated
● Categories partly overlapping -> for analysing experiments, need to add more
● A case study of resource-wise experiments of Jyväskylä (Berg & al. 2014) + a literature review -> later on: a meta-study
The development of use categories for sustainability experiments
10
Uses of sustainability experiments1. Instrumental use● Experimentation as a test
case/field trial○ Practical information on “what
works”
● The most conventional understanding of experimental governance
● The perspective of policy experiments (e.g. Jowell 2003)○ Key questions: rigid design and
evaluation, e.g. reliability and validity
11
Uses of sustainability experiments2. Conceptual/deliberative use● Experimentation as a tool to foster
higher order/conceptual learning – on individual and group levels○ “Assumptions, norms, interpretive frames
which govern the decision-making process and actions” (Brown & Vergragt 2008)
● A key theme in the SE literature
● The perspective of policy learning and deliberative democracy○ Key questions e.g. organizing the
experiment around learning, creating open networks and safe spaces, communicating to various audiences (Bos et al. unpublished)
12
Uses of sustainability experiments3. Political use● Experimentation as a political act, e.g.:
○ A way to bring about, strengthen or weaken politically meaningful symbols, emblems, stories and discourses
○ A way to silent voices or mask general inaction
● A viewpoint less frequently addressed
in the SE literature
● The perspective of (symbolic) politics (e.g. Edelman 1964)○ Key questions e.g. the potential
ritual features of an experiment; the power to bring about strong political symbols/discourses
13
Uses of sustainability experiments4. “Practice change” use● Experimentation as a way to
change routines, habits and practices (of everyday lives)
● A viewpoint addressed unevenly in the SE literature
● The perspective of sustainable consumption literature, marketing and practice theory – also living laboratories○ Key questions e.g. how personal
experiences and the ability to sense things affect behaviour; what is the role of learning by doing and concrete nudges in changing habits
14
Uses of sustainability experiments5. Managerial use● Experimentation as a way to
manage change and to accumulate resources for a cause○ Networks, knowledge, stories,
publicity, money
● A viewpoint less addressed in the SE literature
● Yet, a key for business thinking on experimentation (Tuulenmäki 2010)○ Key questions e.g. the optimal
and innovative design and timing of experiments to maximise resources in use
15
Uses of sustainability experiments6. Systemic use
● Experimentation as a driver for systemic change○ socio-technical, socio-ecological etc
● A perspective frequently used in the SE literature
● The perspective of sustainability transitions literature – but also other e.g. sector-specific framings possible○ Key questions e.g. the role of
experimentation in niche and market creation, spatial development and societal problem solving (Kivimaa et al 2015); the possibilities for experiments to deepen, scale up and broaden
16
A short history of Finland’s quest to become an
experimentalist society
17
● The Foresight Reports of the Prime Minister’s Office○ On energy and climate policy (2009)○ On sustainable growth and well-being (2013)
● In the legislature 2011 - 2015, Juha Sipilä the vice-chair of the Parliament’s Committee for the Future○ Hearing and a study process on experimental culture
Seeds planted - Foresight Reports & Parliament’s Committee for the Future
18
● Ideas on experimental culture met with enthusiasm across political party lines○ A way to shift from stagnation/(mere) planning to
action○ Combatting extensive “normative burden”○ Supporting civic engagement
● In the background ○ Frustration for the unability to solve the great
challenges of our time: economic crisis, social and health care reform (SOTE), climate change…
○ Diminishing powers of the Parliament?
Hearings in Parliament’s Committee for the Future 2012
19
“Time to Experiment!” - A report● A study: “Time to experiment!
– Finland on its way to become an experimentalist society”(Berg, 2013)
● Based on interviews with 14 Finnish experts from e.g. Tekes, Sitra, Aalto University + 14 case studies○ An environmental focus
● Presented in a press conference chaired by Juha Sipilä in the spring 2013
20
”Time to Experiment!” – Key recommendations● An office/ombudsman for
experimentation and innovation
● High profile experimentation hubs
● Seed money
● Councelling services
● A program
21
● Sitra: Various experiments and the quest to promote experimental culture
● Tekes: experimentation a key theme e.g. in the innovation research call of 2013
● Ministry of the Environment & Ministry of Transport and Communications: Sustainable consumption and production experiments & Traffic Lab
● Valo: the idea to use experimentation as a way to make the whole nation exercise by 2017
-> On international level, e.g. increasing urban experiments, living labs and transition experiments + literature on the topic
Other pioneering work in Finland (examples)
22
“A culture of experimentation will be introduced
Experimentation will aim at innovative solutions, improvements in services, the promotion of individual initiative and entrepreneurship, and the strengthening of regional and local decision-making and cooperation. Experiments will make use of citizen-driven operating practices…”
Programme of Prime Minister Sipilä's Government (Chapter 8, p. 28)
23
● An experimentation programme, including extensive trials and several smaller experiments, will be implemented.
● Systematic experimentation will be introduced and a legal basis will be created to make the arrangement of experiments easier.
● Experimentation will reduce response times and improve
anticipation during the process of solving social problems, and the Government’s strategic aims will be promoted.
Programme of Prime Minister Sipilä's Government (Chapter 8, p. 28)
24
The triangle model of experimentsGovernments strategic experiments:- Relatively few- Aim at developing
governments policies- Well designed and evaluated
Experimentation hubs:- 10-100?- For various purposes:
research, technological and service innovation, governance practices
- Design and evaluation as pragmatic for the actors?
- By redirecting resources?
Grassroots experimentation:- Everywhere: workplaces, NGOs,
individual citizens…- Aim at developing their own
operations and the society around (grassroots innovations!)
- Light design and evaluation- Need for small seed money?
26
A participative process ● Minister Anu Vehviläinen
leads the process together with the Minister group on public reforms
● So far, two expert workshops including officials from different ministries
● The Parliament of Finland informed and consulted in a special hearing○ Parliamentary
Adivisory Council
27
The next steps● Plans to establish an “office” to
promote experimentation ○ Part of the Prime Minister’s
Office
● A project to find out whether there should be a special fund for experiments, and if so, what kind of design it should have○ SYKE takes part
● The design process started on the basic income experiment
28
How to approach the promotion of experimental
culture in Finland?
29
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 1. Instrumental use● Particularly governments strategic
experiments
● Practical ideas: Scientific advice for the government; a resource kit for those wanting to test an idea with max. reliability and validity (c.f. Jowell 2003)
● Critical questions: the rigidity of design and evaluation of experiments; the over-use of the instrumental perspective
30
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 2. Conceptual/deliberative use
● All experiments
● Practical ideas: A check-list of design factors that nurture learning through experimentation (e.g. Bos et al. unpublished); networking & communicating success stories
● Critical questions: contents of the learning agenda; participation
31
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 3. Political use● All experiments, particularly
governments strategic exp.
● Practical ideas: Supporting experiments that can act as symbols/emblems in politicized questions; rising and silencing political debates by exp.
● Critical questions: understanding that all experimentation potentially political; re-considering the design of exp., e.g.inclusions/exclusions
32
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 4. “Practice change” use● All experiments, particularly
grassroots experiments
● Practical ideas: Resource kit for using personal trials and nudging to support changes in everyday practices and consumption patterns
● Critical questions: The paternalism of the approach
33
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 5. Managerial use● All - but particularly grassroots
experiments and experimentation hubs
● Practical ideas: A resource kit (incl. communications material) and educational program for those managing experiments; including the viewpoint in the financing mechanisms (a stepwise approach)
● Critical questions: seeing the multiple faces of experiments
34
Discussing the 6 uses - case Finland 6. Systemic use
● All experiments - but different dynamics on different levels
● Practical ideas: political, financial and specialist support (e.g. legal advice) to niche level; feedback-mechanisms to regime level on e.g. barriers to action
● Critical questions: risk of scattered action; the over-use of systemic perspective
35
To conclude
36
● Should there be a special fund for experiments? If so, how should it look like?
● On the basis of studies done so far, it seems that there would be the need for (Berg 2013; Berg et al 2014)○ Easy-to-get seed money for grassroots○ Redirecting existing resources to support
experimentation hubs
● A three step co-creation process with major stakeholders○ (1) The challenges and possibilities experienced in
the field; (2) The possible models of funding exp.; (3) The implementation of the chosen model
○ Syke & Demos Helsinki (2015-2016)
Current SYKE projects - KORVA:A co-creation process on the funding of experiments
37
● Start-up companies and co-creation communities as ecosystems for ecoinnovations○ 2014- 2016○ Syke, Aalto University, Altonova Oy, Tekes
● Proposals to promote eco-innovations by experimentation○ Eco-innovations high on the agenda of the
“experimentation office” of the Prime Minister’s Office○ Experimentation hubs where actors could co-operate
by setting ambitious goals○ Increased public risk financing for companies○ Networks for learning
Current SYKE projects - SCINNO:Experimentation as a way to foster fruitful ecosystems for ecoinnovations
38
What is most fascinating in experimenting?● The possibilities/limits of
sustainability experiments to change things on different levels○ Multiple faces
● Understanding how people and societies are able to take up new things?○ Learning by doing
something fundamental
● Experimentation not new but rather old
