Perspective  of  project  development  within  a  niche:  learning  from  local  practices

Geels   and   Deuten   (2006)   concentrate   on   niche   internal   processes   and   do   not   give   attention  to  the  influence  of  external  processes,  such  as  the  interaction  between  niches   and  regimes  or  the  potential  influence  of  events  taking  place  at  the  landscape  level.  For   example   Hargreaves   et   al.   (2013)   argue   that   Geels   and   Deuten’s   (2006)   perspective,   especially   in   relation   to   its   scope   for   analysing   grassroots   innovations,   is   lacking   in   one   dimension.  Hargreaves  et  al.  (2013)  note  that  in  the  context  of  community  energy  in  the   UK  for  example,  intermediaries  are  not  only  aggregating  lessons,  establishing  institutional   infrastructure   for   the   niche   and   co-­‐ordinating   action   at   local   projects,   but   they   are   also   conducting  a  role  by  “brokering  and  managing  partnerships  with  actors  from  ‘outside’  the   community  energy  sector”  (p.878).    

Despite   the   Geels   and   Deuten’s   (2006)   perspective   lacking   the   availability   to   grasp   all   aspects  of  the  development  of  the  emergence  of  grassroots  innovations  within  niches,  it  is   useful   as   an   analytical   tool   for   this   DPhil   research   as   it   allows   the   analysis   of   the   early   stages  of  niche  creation,  especially  in  the  context  of  a  country  like  Finland,  which  has  thus   far  a  fairly  limited  amount  of  citizen-­‐led  community  energy  action.    

2.4.5 Perspective   of   project   development   within   a   niche:   learning   from   local   practices   translated  to  cosmopolitan  level  lessons  

Building   on   the   niche   development   literature   outlined   above,   this   thesis   adapts   an   empirical  niche  development  perspective  initially  created  by  Raven  et  al.  (2008),  who  note   that  previous  niche  development  literature  (e.g.  Geels  and  Raven  (2006)  and  Raven  and   Geels  (2010)⁵):    

“offers  a  framework  for  analysing  the  relation  between  individual  projects  in   local  contexts  and  the  translation  of  local  experiences  into  generally  applicable   rules  at  the  global  niche  level”  (Raven  et  al.,  2008,  p.465)    

5  The  Raven  and  Geels  paper  referred  to  in  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  was  submitted  for  publication  in  2007.    

Niche   creation   includes   several   processes   at   different   phases   of   a   new   field   emerging.  

Much   of   niche   creation   is   based   on   learning,   networking,   and   experimenting   with   new   innovations  (Raven,  2012).  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  analysed  the  relations  of  local  renewable   energy   projects   and   whether,   and   how,   local   experience   from   those   projects   was   transferred  into  generally  applicable  rules  at  the  cosmopolitan  level,  i.e.  indicating  a  global   niche  phase.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  terminology  used  in  the  niche  literature  varies   between   different   authors.   For   instance   Geels   and   Deuten   (2006)   use   the   term  

‘cosmopolitan   level’   meaning   the   networks,   conferences,   publications   and   intermediary   organisations,   which   have   emerged   and   can   help   facilitate   local   projects.   Raven   et   al.  

(2008),  however  refer  to  this  as  the  ‘global  niche  level’.  The  framework  developed  for  this   thesis  uses  the  term  ‘global  niche  level’  as  per  Raven  et  al.  (2008),  and  which  Geels  and   Deuten   (2006)   refer   to   as   the   ‘cosmopolitan   level’.   However,   ‘global   niche   phase’   is   understood   in   this   thesis   following   Geels   and   Deuten   (2006)   and   which   refers   to   an   established   niche,   with   ‘global/cosmopolitan   level’   actors   such   as   intermediary   organisations   and   networks,   as   well   as   conferences   and   publications   having   been   established  for  the  sector.  This  is  illustrated  in  Figure  5  below.  

Figure  5:  Different  phases  of  knowledge  sharing  from  local  to  global  phase  (adapted  from  Geels   and  Deuten,  2006,  p.269).    

Raven  et  al.  (2008)  identify  three  key  processes  in  relation  to  local  projects:  (1)  variation   through   local   contextualisation   of   a   niche   innovation,   (2)   negotiation   and   alignment   of   expectations  and  (3)  retention  and  transfer  to  the  global  niche  level.  The  three  processes   offer   a   useful   way   to   analyse   projects   in   the   early   phase   of   the   development   of   niche  

Local and global dynamics in technological development

Science and Public Policy May 2006 269

Case study

To illustrate the socio-cognitive perspective, this section presents a historical case study, the emer-gence of reinforced concrete from 1850 to 1940 (based on Deuten, 2003). Reinforced concrete, at the time a novel combination of concrete and iron, started in the mid-19th century as a heterogeneous set of local technologies without much knowledge of underlying technical principles. By the early 20th century, reinforced concrete had become a global technology with stable design rules and shared knowledge repertoires. The following sub-sections analyse this development from local to global knowledge.

Local phase (1850s–1870s)

Reinforced concrete technology started as local solu-tions for specific problems with traditional construc-tional materials (wood, bricks, iron). Early forms of reinforced concrete included substitutes for wooden, rot-susceptible flowerpots, water reservoirs and row-ing boats. Various inventors experimented with rein-forcing concrete pots and reservoirs with iron wire to prevent structures from cracking. Other forms of reinforced concrete were iron building elements

Early applications of iron–concrete artefacts re-mained limited to distinct applications with ven-turing customers who highly valued the water-proofness, fire-proofness and inexpensiveness of the new building material. In the 1860s, inventive entre-preneurs developed complete building systems based on novel combinations of iron and concrete. Patents were issued for concrete–iron elements such as pipes and reservoirs (patented in 1868), flat slabs (1869), bridges and footbridges (1873), stairs (1875), and floor constructions (1878).

An inventive and entrepreneurial ‘system’ owner was the Frenchman Joseph Monier who took a uni-versal patent on his ‘Monier system’ in 1878. He subsequently sold licences to constructors in Ger-many, Austria, England and Belgium. This licensing helped to spread his system within a closed network.

This system was “backed up neither by theory nor by systematic experiment” (Elliot, 1992: 172).

Knowledge was produced through trial-and-error, guided by ‘constructional sense’ rather than by theo-retical insights. Monier’s construction systems were based on intuitions, not calculations, that concrete and iron could play complementary roles: while concrete took the compressive stresses, iron took the tensile stresses.

Knowledge had a local character: if the iron–

concrete mixture or climatic conditions were differ-ent from normal due to local circumstances, the per-formance of the reinforced concrete construction became unpredictable and unreliable. Also indica-tive of the local character was the fact that German licensees hired French experts who had worked with Monier’s system. Thus, parts of reinforced concrete knowledge on did not ‘travel’ well through time nor space.

To attract attention to their novelties, system owners and licensees disclosed part of their knowl-edge. They organised demonstrations and performed public tests with their structures, for instance by burdening them with excessive loads. But such tests could not demonstrate durability over time, which remained a contested issue. It was feared that minute cracks in the concrete could lead to rusting of the embedded iron, resulting in collapses. Despite these uncertainties, venturing customers were interested in reinforced concrete because of advantages in fire-resistance and shock-proofness.

The local phase came to an end when reinforced concrete entrepreneurs wanted to enter mainstream markets in the building sector. To get permissions and meet building regulations, they had to improve their formal knowledge base to make performance

Local phase Inter-local phase Trans-local phase Global phase Figure 2. Phases in the development of shared technological knowledge

Source: Deuten (2003); Raven (2005) / Global

innovations.  The  processes  identified  by  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  complement  the  perspective   by  Geels  and  Deuten  (2006),  which  lacks  the  more  detailed  local  analysis.  Furthermore,   the   three   processes   identified   by   Raven   et   al.   (2008),   which   are   titled   (1)   local   contextualisation  (2)  negotiation  and  engagement  and  (3)  transferable  lessons  in  this  DPhil   thesis,  aid  the  aim  of  answering  the  research  question  on  why  and  how  community  energy   projects  develop  and  how  they  contribute  to  niche  development.  

2.4.5.1 Local  contextualisation  

Firstly,  each  project  has  expectations,  which  are  influenced  by  the  project’s  local  context   (Raven  et  al.,  2008).  Variation  through  local  contextualisation  of  a  niche  innovation  refers   to  the  processes  involved  in  voicing  the  project’s  initial  expectations  and  creating  a  vision.  

One  of  the  success  factors  for  niche  creation  is  the  voicing  of  expectations  and  visions  for   the  development  of  projects,  as  well  as  the  wider  field.  Raven  and  Geels  (2010)  highlight   that  expectations  are  important  in  two  key  ways.  Firstly,  expectations  can  guide  direction   for  innovative  activity  and  other  local  projects,  as  they  are  translated  to  search  heuristics   (Raven   and   Geels,   2010).   Secondly,   expectations   can   be   used   strategically   in   order   to   attract  resources  from  potential  sponsors:  

“Protection  in  technological  niches  comes  from  networks  of  dedicated  actors,   who  are  willing  to  invest  resources  in  the  new  technology.  High  expectations   and  formal  subsidies  contribute  to  this  willingness.”  (Raven  and  Geels,  2010,   p.89)  

Expectations  can  be  different  for  different  people  and  organisations  that  are  involved  in   local  projects.  For  example,  people  within  a  project  can  have  different  initial  expectations   about  what  the  project  is  about  and  power  relations  may  have  a  part  to  play  as  to  whose   expectations  are  the  most  influential  ones  (Raven  et  al.,  2008).  Projects  and  their  funding   organisations,   for   instance,   may   have   different   expectations   about   the   outcomes   of   specific   projects   (Raven   et   al.,   2008).   These   initial   expectations   are   readjusted   in   the   negotiation  and  engagement  with  the  local  community  and  key  stakeholders.  

2.4.5.2 Negotiation  and  engagement  

Secondly,   negotiation   and   engagement   includes   participation   and   how   the   project’s   expectations   are   negotiated   and   adjusted   according   to   its   local   context   (Raven   et   al.,   2008).   Expectations   are   adapted   and   adjusted   according   to   interaction   with   the   local   community  and  key  stakeholders,  and  thus  help  to  shape  the  project’s  vision  and  build  a   niche  (Raven  and  Geels,  2010).  As  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  note  “Project  visions  are  not  fixed”  

(p.467),  but  visions  change  in  the  course  of  each  project  and  they  will  be  influenced  by  the   social   and   political   contexts   that   projects   operate   in.   Furthermore,   negotiation   and   alignment   of   expectations   include   both   informal   and   formal   engagement   with   key   stakeholders  and  the  local  community:  

“Negotiating  expectations  can  be  a  highly  political  process  and  influenced  by   existing  and  newly  created  power  relationships.  It  is  influenced  by  processes  of   participation   and   engagement   of   stakeholders,   their   expectations   and   particular  social  interests,  and  the  ways  in  which  they  shape  and  reshape  the   initial  vision  of  the  project.”  (Raven  et  al.,  2008,  p.467).  

For   example   community   energy   projects   may   need   to   readjust   their   project   plans   over   time  according  to  the  available  skills  that  they  have  and  the  amount  of  funding  that  they   can  secure.  

2.4.5.3 Transferable  lessons  

Thirdly,  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  note  that  as  each  project  is  different  and  has  a  different  local   context,  this  causes  variability  between  projects.  Following  niche  literature,  especially  in   relation   to   niche   development,   Raven   et   al.   (2008)   join   aggregation   and   intermediation   activities  into  a  concept  of  retention  and  transfer  to  the  global  niche  level.  These  processes   include   the   sharing   of   lessons   from   particular   projects,   which   can   be   generalised   and   transferred  to  the  global  niche  level.  They  are  the  lessons  Geels  and  Deuten  (2006)  refer   to  as  aggregated  knowledge  that  can  be  translated  to  global  niche  level  guidance.  Raven   et  al.  (2008)  highlight  that  it  is  important  for  projects  to  be  able  to  learn  from  global  niche   level  actors  and  benefit  from  global  niche  level  guidance,  such  as  best  practice,  technical  

standards   and   shared   ideas.   These   rules   can   guide   local   projects,   but   they   should   also  

“leave   room   for   local   variations,   as   local   actors   reinterpret   and   reinvent   them   for   local   circumstances”   (Raven   et   al.,   2008,   p.466).   Raven   et   al.   (2008)   continue,   that   voicing   expectations  allows  local  actors  to  show  how  they  interpret  the  global  niche  level  rules,   while  negotiation  of  expectations  allows  people  involved  in  local  projects  to  adapt  generic   project  designs  to  their  local  context  and  circumstances.  These  three  processes,  (1)  local   contextualisation,   (2)   negotiation   and   engagement   and   (3)   transferable   lessons   are   outlined  in  Table  1  below.  

Process   Key  dimensions   Example  activity  

Local  

Table  1:  Summary  of  processes  linked  to  niche  development  

In  their  analysis  of  two  local  sustainable  energy  projects,  Raven  et  al.  (2008)  found  that   these  successful  projects  had  the  following  niche  processes  in  common:  

• Projects   were   local   reinterpretations   and   reinventions   of   a   more   generic   concept   of  an  emerging  niche  trajectory    

• These   local   variations   were   the   result   from   differences   in   contextual   setting   and   the  way  projects  engaged  with  their  local  stakeholders  

•  The   project   and   its   context   coevolved,   i.e.   the   context   influenced   the   project’s   variation,  while  the  implementation  of  the  project  itself  also  changed  the  context  

• Both   projects   provided   generic   lessons   that   were   aggregated   and   shared   with   others  

• The   projects   also   acted   as   examples   for   other   projects,   providing   some   transferable  lessons  to  the  niche.    

A  key  outcome  from  Raven  et  al.’s  (2008)  analysis  is  how  local  contexts  influence  project   development,   and   vice   versa,   and   the   extent   to   which,   subsequently,   learning   from   projects  can  be  translated  to  global  niche  level  rules.  As  Raven  et  al.  conclude:  “both  the   translation  of  a  generic  concept  into  a  local  project  variation  as  well  as  the  transfer  of  local   lessons  into  global  rules  occur,  but  are  difficult  and  require  dedicated  work”  (Raven  et  al.,   2008,  pp.473-­‐475).  Furthermore,  Raven  et  al.  highlight  especially  “organizational  models,   financing   structures,   technical   solutions,   and   ideological   meanings”   as   rules   that   can   be   applied  in  other  contexts  (Raven  et  al.,  2008,  p.475).  The  concepts  developed  by  Raven  et   al.   (2008)   -­‐   of   local   contextualisation,   negotiation   and   engagement   and   transferable   lessons   –   are   particularly   useful   for   this   DPhil   as   they   focus   on   analysing   the   processes   linked   to   the   development   of   grassroots   innovations,   and   how   learning   from   such   innovations  may  be  translated  to  build  a  niche.