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.