Changing Systems:Actors and NetworksStructures, 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
Agency
▪ The ability to act - to be an agent of change
▪ Any social entity – a person, a group, a business, a university, etc.
Structure
▪ 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”
▪ 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.
Examples:
▪ 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”
▪ 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.
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.
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.
▪ 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.
▪ 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.
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.